[The Wire]

(05-05-2015 05:43 PM)Jaffna Wrote:  

Except men are the initiators. And women are as choosy as their options. A woman in Los Angeles will get at least 50 messages per day. A woman in Ithaca, NY may only get 5 message per day.

It's a silly way of looking at it. It's like trying to say you have a better shot at getting a good tech job in Ithaca over Silicon Valley because there's less competition in Ithaca.

You are better putting yourself in a place where you have a lot more options.

I did a quick experiment comparing NYC and Ithaca on OKC. I understand POF is probably a more popular site in backwood areas but lets test it anyway.

Criteria; How many White woman between the ages 21 and 25 who are either Thin, Skinny, Fit, Athletic who are Online Now

Within 5 miles of NYC there was 201 woman.

Within 5 miles of Ithaca there was 2. Thats right and the one girl was actually half black(probably a 3) and the other white girl was probably about a 4. I changed the distance of Ithaca to 10 miles. Same 2 girls. So I changed the distance to 25 miles, same 2 girls. 50 miles got 3 girls and the one girl was actually bangable

This is the type stats you are dealing with in small towns. You realize its a couple of below average women who are getting flooded with emails from every hick in a 50 mile radius?

[TrifeLife]

I definitely had better luck in a smaller rural area than I have been having in NYC. That being said, my tinder game isn't optimized at all. I imagine a lotta dudes here are on point with it. Interested to see how things change when I put the blurredstevens advice in play.

[polar]

Delete

[polar]

I've done OKC in a tier 3 town ~150k, and tier 2 and tier 1 urban suburbs (both 10-15 min walk from metro, 30 min out from center). All northeast US. 18-22 target demographic. I've gotten bangs from online in each one.

Tier 3: I agree that in a small town, you'll burn through the entire talent pool in a matter of days. Even then, most of the pool consists of fatties, single moms, weirdos, and maybe 10% would bang. All come with 398-point checklists. In third-tier cities, ratios in the 18-28 demographic are terrible. And that's assuming you have no ethnic preferences, etc. I went on dates but despite solid logistics, conversion was underwhelming. Even if a chick was just one town over, I'd still often end up driving 30 min due to suburbia.

In tier 3, I experimented with sources other than OKC (Plenty of Fatties, Zoosk, a few smaller / niche ones) but those are even worse quality, and most of the chicks are on OKC anyway.

Tier 2 suburb: here I had best results. I lived near multiple colleges. I had access to metro and a car (allowing me to go out late and meet girls who weren't centrally located, which contributed to a couple of good notches). I did pretty well, but would have done even better if my pad was walking distance from my date locations. I lost multiple bangs where they couldn't rationalize a short cab ride, and then I'd never get them out again. My bangs generally happened on date 2 or 3.

Tier 1: if you live in Manhattan, you can kill it from sheer quantity. If you don't, it's an uphill battle. With same pictures, etc. you will get dates from 1 point lower than in tier 2. It's very tough to pull girls from Manhattan to the boroughs, and you'll have a lot of cold leads after 1st date. You can get results from looking closer to where you live, but the talent pool will be worse. Bring your A game and have good pictures. I'd consider getting professional shots.

Overall: I noticed a marked difference in level of interest between 18-21 girls and 22-23. I'd generally do much better with younger...upper bound for 22-24 tends to be much higher, while I can still pass for a college student.

Bottom line: logistics, logistics, logistics. If your date location is more than 10 min or 1 mile from yours, your odds of pulling are slim.

[RougeNoir]

Average men have a hard time dating online, at night, and during the day in small, medium, and large cities. The point is don't be an average man.

[eradicator]

(06-01-2015 06:52 PM)RougeNoir Wrote:  

Average men have a hard time dating online, at night, and during the day in small, medium, and large cities. The point is don't be an average man.

Indeed. I was about to post the exact same thing. If you aren't happy with your results, keep improving yourself and your lifestyle until you really are an attractive man to women. Then run game and bang hot women.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(05-05-2015 05:43 PM)Jaffna Wrote:  

There seem to be a lot of guys here who have a hard time getting dates. Is this primarily due to location?

Conventional wisdom dictates that a higher population means a more active dating life. More options means more dates right?

Except men are the initiators. And women are as choosy as their options. A woman in Los Angeles will get at least 50 messages per day. A woman in Ithaca, NY may only get 5 message per day.

Since the average girl in LA has an inbox flooded with guys messaging her, this makes it harder for the average guy in LA to stand out. Meanwhile an average guy in Ithaca may have an easier time getting a date because there are far fewer men to compete with.

Average guys who've done online dating in both big and small cities, did you get fewer dates in a big city (Population > 2,000,000) than in a smaller city/town (Population < 300,000)?

"A woman in Ithaca, NY may only get 5 message per day."

This is a flawed premise from what I've been told by many women.

Thirsty, low-quality men (some of whom are fronts for spammers or scammers) will flood any inbox of any attractive woman anywhere. So the hot girl in Ithaca might be getting messages from guys in Ohio, Liverpool, and South Africa as well as men in her area.

This is why you often see women's profiles saying things like "Local men only, please!" But that doesn't stop low-quality guys from hitting her up online and cluttering her inbox.

This doesn't rule out average guys, but it makes it harder for women to weed out the good from the bad and often good guys lose out because women only have so much patience. When they've just deleted 25 messages, unless yours is particularly great, they'll assume it's phony, or a scam, or a play for easy sex, or something lousy, simply because that's what deal with day after day.

****

As for "not being average," it does work. To get my feet wet at Match.com, I put together a fake profile of a 6'1" businessman who was into finance and sports and looked like a good-looking Joe Average. I used catalog shots for the pics. I got no responses to any of my messages.

So then I put out the real me: Weird as hell, into music no one's ever heard of, vocally against smart phones, anti-technology in general, obsessed with '70s sitcoms and '80s teen movies, long hair, and too short. I was messaged almost immediately -- and didn't even have time to send a message.

As much as I hate the degrading word "bro" to describe men, I think it really does help not to come off like one online. Having the average frat guy look might work in a bar, but online you're another guy, just like the last one she dealt with and the one before that. Quirky works -- or it did with me at least.

[Merenguero]

(06-01-2015 07:06 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 05:43 PM)Jaffna Wrote:  

There seem to be a lot of guys here who have a hard time getting dates. Is this primarily due to location?

Conventional wisdom dictates that a higher population means a more active dating life. More options means more dates right?

Except men are the initiators. And women are as choosy as their options. A woman in Los Angeles will get at least 50 messages per day. A woman in Ithaca, NY may only get 5 message per day.

Since the average girl in LA has an inbox flooded with guys messaging her, this makes it harder for the average guy in LA to stand out. Meanwhile an average guy in Ithaca may have an easier time getting a date because there are far fewer men to compete with.

Average guys who've done online dating in both big and small cities, did you get fewer dates in a big city (Population > 2,000,000) than in a smaller city/town (Population < 300,000)?

"A woman in Ithaca, NY may only get 5 message per day."

This is a flawed premise from what I've been told by many women.

Thirsty, low-quality men (some of whom are fronts for spammers or scammers) will flood any inbox of any attractive woman anywhere. So the hot girl in Ithaca might be getting messages from guys in Ohio, Liverpool, and South Africa as well as men in her area.

This is why you often see women's profiles saying things like "Local men only, please!" But that doesn't stop low-quality guys from hitting her up online and cluttering her inbox.

This doesn't rule out average guys, but it makes it harder for women to weed out the good from the bad and often good guys lose out because women only have so much patience. When they've just deleted 25 messages, unless yours is particularly great, they'll assume it's phony, or a scam, or a play for easy sex, or something lousy, simply because that's what deal with day after day.

****

As for "not being average," it does work. To get my feet wet at Match.com, I put together a fake profile of a 6'1" businessman who was into finance and sports and looked like a good-looking Joe Average. I used catalog shots for the pics. I got no responses to any of my messages.

So then I put out the real me: Weird as hell, into music no one's ever heard of, vocally against smart phones, anti-technology in general, obsessed with '70s sitcoms and '80s teen movies, long hair, and too short. I was messaged almost immediately -- and didn't even have time to send a message.

As much as I hate the degrading word "bro" to describe men, I think it really does help not to come off like one online. Having the average frat guy look might work in a bar, but online you're another guy, just like the last one she dealt with and the one before that. Quirky works -- or it did with me at least.

If you look too good in your profile pictures, a lot of girls will doubt that the picture is really you. In my light experimentation with online dating, many of the responses merely question if those are really my pictures. Couple that with my very Anglo looks and the fact that my written Spanish is better than most native speakers', and things really don't add up online. Once people meet me in real life and talk to me for thirty seconds, everything makes perfect sense.

[Foolsgo1d]

In major cities or even those just below you're dealing with a bigger number of men in the 80/20 range. You may be in the top 20 or top 10 of a lot of smaller towns and cities but the bigger leagues may push you down.

I had more success when I lived in the major UK cities but that was merely a numbers game. More women are available in closer proximity. A city such as NYC would probably be a playground but alas I have never been. I would like to however.

[MikeinMKE]

I can't imagine anybody who is single voluntarily living in a metro area of smaller than 500,000 (or a college town with tons of options if you're in that age range) in this day and age. It just makes no sense to me. Bigger is pretty much better within reason. Huge cities usually tend to have higher cost of living, but if you can find a sweet spot like a Pittsburgh or a Nashville you can do just fine with an average job and salary.

[XPQ21]

Again, I'm pretty new to the online thing, and after getting basically no replies on OKC for some time, the other day I put up some better pictures and changed my profile a bit, and experimented a little more with what my "demographic" is to send messages to. Its seems to sort of be alternative/hipster women.

I initially tried contacting women of that type who were science grad students or who worked in STEM fields like medicine/physics/biotechnology/IT like I do and was getting shut down completely - I could tell they were intrigued by my opener as they'd rush to visit my profile, but then they'd bail. I don't have an advanced degree and I went to a kind of cake university; I think the hypergamy is very strong with these women and they only want a dude who they think is "on their level."

I then started contacting a similar type, but women who work in "nurturing" professions like nursing and education, etc. and I'm getting replies like crazy now - maybe a 40% or 50% response rate or so for the 20 messages I sent in the last couple days. Most are "5s", though there are some "6s" with a few "7s" and and _maybe_ one "8" mixed in. Most of them are in their mid-late 20s to early 30s, with one very early 20s. I doubt anything will go anywhere with some of the latter, but after just a single night's effort there's a mid 20s "5.5" who seems relaxed and cool and kind of has the look I like, whom I have a some funny chat going on with and who basically wants to meet up for sex immediately. It took me 2 hours last evening to reply to my messages.

And I'm a balding guy in my mid-30s who doesn't make nearly as much money as I probably should be at this point in my life. My pictures aren't even all that great and they're certainly not pro shots - I've always been camera shy. But I have a quirky/funny profile, send interesting opening messages, and live in a major metro area on the east coast.

I definitely think of myself as an "average" guy, at least when it comes to looks and income. So tell me again how things would be so much better for me in Ithica or where the fuck ever?

[Gosh900]

Big cities are always better than small ones. I wonder how we can even debate that.

I've lived in all kind of cities, from the very small ones (10,000 inhabitants) to very large ones (more than 8 millions) and small cities are a fucking hell.
In small cities the best girls are always engaged and you're left with nothing at all....in big cities there are lots of girls and there is a constant flow of new girls arriving every month so you never run out of girls.
Furthermore in large cities girls tend to have fun more and are much more open to meet new people.

In very small town girls tend to stick with the guys they know since kindergarten and if you weren't cool back then you're fucked.
I feel pity for the guys that live in such cities

Suffice to say, if you're a fucking weirdo or a f-ugly dude you're doomed wherever you go

[The Beast1]

Ithaca NY's talent is trash all around. Even girls attending the two colleges there aren't that attractive. You'll of course find a smattering of decent talent, but you will clearly get better women that are less bitchy if you leave for a bigger city.

Avoid the townie bars lest you want to hang out with high school drop outs who work as service workers in all of the restaurants. If you stick around long enough you will get a reputation at the local bars because those townies all talk to each other (including the bartenders). This will cock block you incessantly.

The summer time is the worst time for pick up. All of the college students are gone and the majority of people in the bars are the wash outs I mentioned previously.

Dare I say it, you'll have better luck with women in Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo.

[Ksenona]

I agree with Gosh900 , that big cities are always better than small ones.
Once I met guy online (via https://kovla.com/datings/us/fremont/ maybe somebody knows) , he lives in small city. I live in NY. We didn't meet for a very long time. He didn't wish to go NY.. Long distance relationships are so bad! It is unacceptable for me. Since I have met guys from NY)

[Merenguero]

(07-07-2015 11:42 PM)Ksenona Wrote:  

I agree with Gosh900 , that big cities are always better than small ones.
Once I met guy online (via https://kovla.com/datings/us/fremont/ maybe somebody knows) , he lives in small city. I live in NY. We didn't meet for a very long time. He didn't wish to go NY.. Long distance relationships are so bad! It is unacceptable for me. Since I have met guys from NY)

If you are a female troll, please P.M. me a naked picture of yourself. If you are a gay guy, don't bother.

[Druber]

(06-03-2015 01:49 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Ithaca NY's talent is trash all around. Even girls attending the two colleges there aren't that attractive. You'll of course find a smattering of decent talent, but you will clearly get better women that are less bitchy if you leave for a bigger city.

Avoid the townie bars lest you want to hang out with high school drop outs who work as service workers in all of the restaurants. If you stick around long enough you will get a reputation at the local bars because those townies all talk to each other (including the bartenders). This will cock block you incessantly.

The summer time is the worst time for pick up. All of the college students are gone and the majority of people in the bars are the wash outs I mentioned previously.

Dare I say it, you'll have better luck with women in Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo.

I experienced this myself in a mid to large sized town in the UK.

It was actually a supermarket that I used regularly, but some of the staff (who also had a major social network - both on and offline), decided to spread some malicious gossip.

But yeah, I plan to head to a city and just stay relatively anon.

[ksbms]

I guess it's difficult to tell with certainty, for circumstantial evidence you guys pull out might be skewed by mulititude of factors, from your attractiveness to socio-economic status. We'd need to obtain statistical data (it is not that hard) about US statistics or (in my case) from UK statistics, pull the relevant data and run some reasonably basic statistical analysis (I might do that one day if I have lots of free time). In my opinion, thinking of a Fermi estimation (but with no numbers!), the inferential heuristics would be like this:

Since the major target group is 18-25, and it is universally known that urbanization has been ongoing for decades in Western countries, and more universities are in bigger cities, more jobs are in bigger cities, more opportunities regarding improving once life whatever-it-is are in bigger cities, henceforth more, at any given time, available girls for some short- or longterm love would be in bigger cities. Depending on the country, this would constitute different size in population. Can't tell about US but I'd shoot for UK it would be anything 400k population upwards with one caveat, namely there's at least one major university in that city.

[Merenguero]

(07-07-2015 11:49 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 11:42 PM)Ksenona Wrote:  

I agree with Gosh900 , that big cities are always better than small ones.
Once I met guy online (via https://kovla.com/datings/us/fremont/ maybe somebody knows) , he lives in small city. I live in NY. We didn't meet for a very long time. He didn't wish to go NY.. Long distance relationships are so bad! It is unacceptable for me. Since I have met guys from NY)

If you are a female troll, please P.M. me a naked picture of yourself. If you are a gay guy, don't bother.

Just so you guys know, no female troll has ever P.M.ed me naked pictures of herself, despite me asking several of them to do so. It's way easier for me to get women in the real world to send me naked pictures.

[Hoo]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Tinder/comments...xperiment/

Quote:

The results for the underwear model were just as anyone would have suspected. Within the 10 hour timeframe that I did my experiment, this profile got 345 matches and 94 of those sent a message first (only 3 of which actually called me out because they knew who the model was)

The average guy got 9 matches and 2 first messages and the ugly guy got 3 matches and 2 messages(one from a bot)

In matches, 3833% difference between very good looking and average looking guy... In messages received: 4700%

More science on this subject:



Keep in mind that being in 70+ percentile in looks is hard and majority are outside that range.



Only about 2-4% of guys are actually "8" in looks (while from self reports that number would be like 30% )

Also keep in mind that guys that were contacted first with average looks were probably so by girls below them in looks... Think about it logically, why would a hot girl who has a choice of 50 hot guys contact average looking guy ? Or for that matter even give him a chance at all.

That's why I don't live in the west anymore. Odds are too much against us average guys. Not saying that with good game you can't turn it around and get "lucky" every now and then but why play "the rigged game" ?

[kavakid]

Small towns girls would be less likely to do online game I would imagine, as there are usually safe and nearby events and venues to go out. Whereas in a big city a girl is more likely to stay home on the couch with her cat and turn to online options. I imagine college girls don't need online and they are running across single guys and parties all the time. If a girl is online in a small town she might not be social at all, maybe crazy or weird. Or maybe she doesn't fit into the dominant social dynamic of the town.

Anyhow I had more success in Atlanta online than in Savannah, Ga. It seemed most girls in their prime in Savannah preferred to go out to the many venues downtown rather than be a shut in.

[elcidcampeador]

Big cities are much much easier for me than smaller ones (under 1 million).

I was in Oklahoma City last week for 2 days and could only get a date with a prudish OU sorority girl to have drinks with me. Me not looking at all like locals might have hurt me.

DC on the other hand a 2 day trip yielded 2 lays in 2 nights.

NYC is always reliable, although the quality isn't worth it once you have a social circle.

[Soyouz]

In a small city, everybody knows everybody. So a player will get a bad reputation quickly.

In a huge city, you can date a girl, and never see her again in your life, and it's easier for them to have ONS, or casual dating.

[Chewbacon]

i had way more success in hong kong than I do now in fucking raleigh, nc.

[Gentrification]

Real cities it should be gravy. San Francisco sucks. No more of this well there's hot girls you gotta just blah blah. Place is bleh to me. Its not just women its the energy of the city that effects everything. There are hot bitches but nothing like NYC, LA, shiet Guadalajara.