[runsonmagic]

(10-19-2014 04:30 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 04:10 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  

Ahh come on - Runsonmagic isn't saying that.

He is saying that every lay is made up of an active cost and a passive cost.
Active =spent that night. Passive = lifestyle/development costs.
He isn't saying the sole motivation for the passive cost is to get laid. It just exists as part of your life.

So

- money spent on food when you're by yourself (it's cheaper to carb up on rice and beans, rather than spend on grass fed beef)
- money spent on a bed, sheets, pillows, comforter
- money spent on car insurance, tires
- money spent on going to the dentist
- money spent on getting an education
- money spent going to a sports bar to watch the game with your friends, but you happen to meet a girl there

Should these figure into cost per notch?

That's the problem with the including your regular lifestyle into CPN calculations.

WIA

I agree that you can't separate your game and regular lifestyle. However "regular lifestyle" means different things to different people.

At one point, my regular lifestyle involved eating a lot of processed food. By American standards, this is regular. Shifting from that to a paleo diet took time and commitment. During the time I was changing my diet, I wasn't getting laid much and pick up was not a focus. However after making that change, I had more energy, my thinking was clearer, and I looked better. I also noticed that women started to eye-fuck me more.

For costs, I'm talking about the cost of change. Making a lifestyle change usually costs something, even if it's just time or will. Buying grassfed beef over bread and chips is part of my regular costs now, but when I first started I didn't even know how to cook. I wouldn't include my food bill in CPN, but I would include the time and energy it took to change what was on my food bill.

I also agree that self-development is it's own reward. Now, even if I knew it didn't help me socially, I would eat healthy, because I like being healthy. However willpower is a limited resource. Should I spend an extra two hours a day doing pick up, or use that time to develop a new passive skill? That's what I'm talking about with passive notch costs.

Ideally, the passive skills you pick up are things you do because you love them. Trying to become famous just to get girls is not going to be enough for most people. Practicing an artform you love and would do if there was no reward beyond the art itself might result in fame and fortune. Thinking about CPN this way can help you figure out how to spend your time and how to accomplish multiple goals at the same time.

[WestIndianArchie]

(10-19-2014 08:01 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  

Should I spend an extra two hours a day doing pick up, or use that time to develop a new passive skill? That's what I'm talking about with passive notch costs.

Show me the equations.

WIA

[Noir]

(10-18-2014 03:00 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

As a general RVF rule, you keep your costs low.
You've got your recipe down to a science, but there's flexibility for special cases.
You're also spinning plates, if you drop one, there are more than a few ready.

The Scenario

You met your 9.2, and she's giving you that good feeling.
She's your version of smoking hot.
You're really trying to bury your meat.
The highest you've been on the attractive mountain in a while.
Good vibe between the two of you...


Did the formula on date 1,

Dropped a c-note or so on drinks for the two of you (4 rounds at the first place, 2-3 rounds at the second place, and a cab ride (no appetizer)).
Great make out, get to second base,...but she kept you at bay.

Date 2

About the same amount spent, sub in a light dinner with wine for one of the bar rounds. This time, you get to third....this close to a bj....but it's just not happening yet...but you've been here before, the chick is the on the edge.

Date 3 - she's contacting you, texting you out the blue, sending you pics...

Date 3 comes around, and you go for the "I'll make you dinner" gambit. Linguine, Pesto, Shrimp, bottle of white, and her for dessert....

In terms of special groceries, you're probably out 50-60 bucks, but still cheaper than the last few dates

You get a great BJ, but she's claiming Aunt Flo is visiting...

Date 4 finally comes around, she's eager and ready.....

________________________________________

Preguntas

1) Are you willing to invest more time money to bang a 9.2 on your scale?
2) After the first bang, how many bangs would you need to get a solid return on investment?

2 more? 10 more? 1 threesome? Anal on the 2nd bang?

WIA

1) Yes, I have come so far. My ego will probably mean I do but more importantly, if by the third date I am considering this, then obviously I want it.

I very rarely give a girl a '9', most of the girls are 6-8s including the ones I hook up.

Given this, I would throw money via dates to give it a go and be freaky for the story.

AntiTrace nailed it with the 'game budget'.

re: meta passive vs. active cost- I am with WIA.

Passive costs aren't taken into consideration as those are long term investments in yourself and it reflects and attracts women.



2) Bangs for solid return on investment:

impossible to say as depends on:

a) how did she react to being fucked i.e. how has her demeanor changed (clingy/annoying/glowing/submissive) - not necessarily in that order .

b) how good is she in the sack?

c) gf material? (did she lie to me about her aunt visiting? is she taking other guys for a ride? etc. if yes, more bangs for ROI and vice versa, in my opinion)

d) conspicuous or not? public displays of affection (PDA heavy or not?

e) worth the PDA i.e does she look good on my arm? (was my ego rewarded?)

[Santoro]

I'd go for it.

Once I find a girl I like, and that I don't feel is playing me, I'll push/escalate as much as possible but not be butthurt if I can't get laid by the third date. It's not common, but it happens.

On girls I like, *I* want to go to a rave, get trashed, hear music I enjoy, and have sleazy drunk sex. That's not the cheapest route, but I sure as hell have fun and it pans out more often that not.

A big part of CPN isn't just how much you spend but how much you convert when you're dropping coin. If you can do things that you like and would want to do anyway that happen to be more fun with a girl on your arm, I don't see any problem in dropping mild dough (~$50-$100/night). Lifestyle game, or whatever it's called. Only I think of it on a smaller, not oh-so-baller level. Simply things that I enjoy...doesn't have to be crazy fancy or expensive. And if I'm in the mood for dollar beer night, that works fine too.

I think a lot of guys look at 'cost per notch' and try to minimize it, but you also have to think of diversity in the experiences you're having with the girl. Yes, tight game will allow you to score on three (or less) cheap bar dates, but tight game + memorable experiences reel in the pussy like no other. The 'experiences' don't even have to be special or expensive, just memorable.

A girl that I click with, is hot, and pushes my buttons (warm, feminine, fun, creative)...I'm going to treat her like everyone else but in the back of my head I know this is the kind of girl that I sort through the rubbish for. Theorists would say that mindset would 'leak out' and cause weak game, but seasoned chess players are always aware of their position, next move, and the next 20 moves. And you sure as hell can't read it in their faces...Not too different here

[OnlyMarryInTajikistan]

You can make an exception if the girl deserves it, but be careful of the place that exception comes from.

You must always be willing to lose her. If it comes from a place of breaking your own rules for fear of losing her, that will shine through.

[Isaac Jordan]

(10-18-2014 05:43 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

Where you are
- hours spent on 3 occasions
- dollars spent on 3 occasions
- unknown amount of time communicating with the chick to pull her initially, and then set up said dates

What you gain by going out on the date
- Given that she's already gave you a hummer, a bang with a chick that you think is smoking hot, not just run of the mill fuckable
- she could turn into a regular, and be on your rotation
- whatever benefits she might have as a person (LOL)

What you lose by not pursuing
- the time and money already spent with nothing but a blow job to show for it

Penny Wise and Pound Foolish?

Or totally rational, and understand that sunk costs are a fallacy.

WIA

You don't evaluate the payoff of a poker game based on how much you won or lost in the last hand. In order to decide whether or not to ante up, you only consider your current hand, your chances of winning, and the size of the pot.

If we rephrase WIA's scenario as

"You have an opportunity to take out an HB9.2; it'll cost you $100 but you've got a 90% chance of sealing the deal,"

then suddenly things look a lot different. Who wouldn't pay that price, with those odds, for that kind of payoff?

Guys saying they wouldn't bother with date #4 is like saying you wouldn't bother seeing a flop when you've got pocket aces and a million-dollar pot, just because they lost the last three hands.

Cost-per-notch is useful as a metric for players looking to maximize their efficiency, but it shouldn't be used as a decision-making tool, precisely because it doesn't discriminate against sunk costs.

[WestIndianArchie]

(10-22-2014 05:08 PM)Isaac Jordan Wrote:  

You don't evaluate the payoff of a poker game based on how much you won or lost in the last hand. In order to decide whether or not to ante up, you only consider your current hand, your chances of winning, and the size of the pot.

If we rephrase WIA's scenario as

"You have an opportunity to take out an HB9.2; it'll cost you $100 but you've got a 90% chance of sealing the deal,"

then suddenly things look a lot different. Who wouldn't pay that price, with those odds, for that kind of payoff?

Guys saying they wouldn't bother with date #4 is like saying you wouldn't bother seeing a flop when you've got pocket aces and a million-dollar pot, just because they lost the last three hands.

Cost-per-notch is useful as a metric for players looking to maximize their efficiency, but it shouldn't be used as a decision-making tool, precisely because it doesn't discriminate against sunk costs.

Nice analysis.

WIA

[AneroidOcean]

I liked the poker analogy, but then I like poker. Slight alteration, it's like the last hand you played you thought you were winning it all but you ended up winning a small amount from player 1 and player 2 split the rest of the pot with you.

Directly on topic:

There's been a ton of rumination on the topic especially going fairly far off topic. I think this is much simpler, like the would you bang thread.

The deciding factor when you're assuming she's really, really attractive to you is her investment. If she's chasing you, if she's invested, absolutely I'm going on that date. If she seems like a airhead bimbo that just gave you a BJ in an attempt to string you along and isn't invested, I'll only go on the date if I've got nothing else going on and feel like spending the effort.

Sounds like the scenario described is option 1. She's invested, so it's worth at least another date, especially if you sort it out to be a moonlit walk on the beach with a bottle of wine, ending at your beachpad.