[B-Nut]

I've been thinking about the corellation between looks (online game) and infield success

This is what I have noticed

- I don't know of anyone that is good in-field that sucks on-line. When I say sucks online - I mean like 0 percent ability to get a date from any girl off tinder - and a 1 out of a 100 date to message ratio on pof targeted at mostly fatties

- I know of several guys with above average online game who had horrible success cold approaching. These individuals had a very large sample size, over 1000 approaches each.

[CleanSlate]

Zero. Neither correlated nor anti-correlated.

[General Stalin]

I would venture to say it is heavily dependent on your experience. Ugly guys are going to have a serious disadvantage in approaching and online, just like top 10% looks guys are going to have a much easier time approaching and getting dates online.

With that said, I myself am far better at online game than approaching simply because I do it a lot more. I probably have better text-game skills and messaging skills than a guy of the same looks who doesn't do it much.

[Rocha]

I think that for non top-looking guys, online game hurts their cold approaching skills.
I have seen in first person guys who are masters in online game, and get stuck or fail completely while approaching.
Those extra seconds or minutes you have to think in what you are going to write make the mind lazy, burn the cognitive reflexes and social interaction skills, that has a price in real life.

[WestIndianArchie]

A guy that is good at online game is the future of game.

Chicks will adapt because the societal trend is push all communication and interaction online. Chicks are very adaptable. They're typically the people at the forefront of any social media/telecom use.

The hormones have found a way to manage the extended awkwardness of meeting a stranger - and plenty of people have hooked up, gotten married, and become parents from web encounters.

For us dinosaurs, it's adapt or move to a locale with less technological penetration.

WIA

[Kabal]

From casual empiricism:

Unadjusted for looks? Modest to strong positive correlation.

Adjusted for looks? Near-zero to weak positive correlation.

[the Thing]

The two is not related at all. A man can go from having zero game to bang machine with enough practice and patience on either medium.

I don't do well at online. Part of the reason is my text openers aren't as carefully crafted and well practiced as my live action ones. What I lack in text game, I make up in reading the social situation and acting accordingly, ie. body language which I have heavily invested in. But also (a) I'm not particularly good looking (b) while I do interesting shit I focus on doing it instead of taking pictures of it.

(11-07-2015 11:03 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

A guy that is good at online game is the future of game.

Chicks will adapt because the societal trend is push all communication and interaction online. Chicks are very adaptable. They're typically the people at the forefront of any social media/telecom use.

The hormones have found a way to manage the extended awkwardness of meeting a stranger - and plenty of people have hooked up, gotten married, and become parents from web encounters.

For us dinosaurs, it's adapt or move to a locale with less technological penetration.

WIA

I have done fuck all for my online game so far. My only social media accounts are on Facebook and LinkedIn. I use LinkedIn on a professional level and Facebook only for the messenger. I never bother posting anything, even my profile picture is like 1.5 years old. My Tinder pictures are my Facebook profile picture and another random pic. I don't use it that much either, I still mass swipe from time to time and get some matches but most of them are so gross you wouldn't touch them with a 5 foot pole. Out of the other ones I only met 2 of them in real life.

But what WIA said is 100% correct. Every week, less and less young women go on dates on Saturday evenings instead of hanging out at night clubs. When they finally decide to have a night out it's a girls' night out so they bring all their cock blocks along with them.

Therefore I have decided to invest more into my online game.

I created a bunch of girl accounts on Tinder to see what kind of approaches guys use. I filtered out the "hey baby u want sum fuk"s and got facebooks from the others to check out how well they were doing with girls. Guys that seemed to be serious in online dating all had;

1- pictures in 3 categories: (a) portrait / upper body photos (b) photos of them hanging out with friends © photos of them doing a hobby. And
2- Link to another social networking account mainly Instagram and Twitter, full of witty tweets/status symbols/party pictures/what have you.

It's designed like a sales funnel and the principles of copywriting (Attract, Interest, Desire, Action) completely apply. They're designed to
- get the girl to look at the guy's profile by a not particularly interesting one-line opener and a sharp profile picture (Attract),
- lay down DHV on the profile and various other social media accounts (Interest),
- make conversation and build rapport (Desire), and finally
- set up a date and take things from there (Action).

Based on my findings I started taking action. I've invested into a decent camera and a go pro. I also ordered a front panel for my iPhone (because it's cracked over the front camera lens and it's completely unusable). I took some decent looking selfie type profile pictures. I created an Instagram account and started acquiring followers. Over the winter I'll shoot snowboarding / track day related shit to make video montages, take travel pictures, open a twitter and tweet some deep type stuff to build myself some online DHV. Just having proper lighting in the profile picture increased the match count significantly but hopefully in a few weeks I'll have a much more effective fuck funnel.

Back to the original question; online vs. infield is more like, do you look good vs. can you carry yourself well enough to appear good looking?

[Green-On-GO]

I'm not photogenic.Due to a service related injury, cameras seem to pick up my lazy eye while the normal eye does not pick it up....no shit.If I smile its pronounced..Saying that swiping depresses the hell out of me..just the lack of quality and I don't trust all the filtering...or am I being a Online weasel??

Online just equals a lack of freedom for me or choice.Then there is the age thing.
My best mate at work is a Tinder king but he's taste gets worse and worse.Good luck to him.

Frankly I'm switching to more daygame / cafe game.... fucking, anywhere I can get it game.Night game is dying hard here I reckon just like Grinder killed the gay bars, Tinder is killing the hetro bars.

One of my mates still in the army reckons none of the young guys he trains actually go out to pick up ,every fucker is on he's phone same with the young cops I know.

They say it's so easy but for me it feels like regression..That eye flash or eye fuck or bump or her closing proximity that fucking high from infield.The way a woman moves etc. I think would be lacking online..

I can only go from me and my mate. If we go out he depends on me to read the room yet he amazes me on how many matches he gets in a short time online.He can't handle the rejection infield and admits it.To him it's a waste of energy to me it's fun.To me online is a frustrating waste of my time....but each to his own.Everyone has he's own game and what works for him...got to say though I got more hits in Moscow in 2 hours than Melbourne in 2 weeks on Tinder gps spoof...
None in Spain,EE I got heaps though..must be my latino looks.