[Yellowcake]

(11-05-2018 06:50 AM)I Love White Women Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 03:03 AM)corsega Wrote:  

(11-04-2018 11:06 PM)I Love White Women Wrote:  

3.San Francisco (tourist areas only - Union Square, North Beach, Fisherman’s Wharf, cheap youth hostels)

Not a chance this should be number 3.

I have done 350+ approaches in SF. I would say SF is one of the worst major cities for daygame in the entire country.

Ugly and mediocre quality girls. I have walked Union Square and Market Street for hours before and seen maybe 1 or 2 approachable girls.

Shit ratios.

Less and less girls going outside solo in public (see: rise of Uber, delivery services. Remember, this is the home of tech).

I had pleasant experiences with tourist girls in SF and gamed them in youth hostels (North Beach, Union Square) as well. Lol maybe I have low standards.

With SF and daygame, tourist girls are the key. Not hard to spot, they will have a smile on their faces unlike the local SF women.

Market Street is shit though...didn't have any success. Horrible street for daygame in SF. Fisherman’s Wharf & Ghirardelli Square (especially that chocolate factory) is good. If I lived in SF, I would just daygame & nightgame at Ghirardelli Square.

San Francisco is no good for day game. Plethora of angry women hitting the wall, entitled, and marginal looking. Maybe if you like Asian girls, could be good, but otherwise, somewhat of a waste of time.

[pancakemouse]

(11-06-2018 11:16 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 04:05 AM)corsega Wrote:  

I personally only do Berkeley nowadays. It's closer to me. But yes, SF State/City College are the best bets in SF. The big mall (Westpoint) is prime daygamer territory. It's meh quality.

So do you mainly game around campus and Telegraph?

Berkeley is like the SJW vortex of the States and possibly the planet, drawing all the freaks in from wherever they be.

Don't you have a problem with quality even on campus? Do you have to wait around a while to find anyone you'd want to approach?

And once you find one, won't their need to talk politics drive you to despair?

I haven't been to Berkeley for a while, so I am wondering what it is like now.

And do you give Oakland a pass?

Oakland has the ugliest girls out of any place I've ever been.

I game as close to campus as possible. Any further than that, and yes, you are going to run into your typical Berkeley/Oakland residents, as you describe. I look for students only.

Quality on campus is much better than any other place I've been in the Bay. Sure, it's not great, but you take what you can get here. I can usually get in about 15-20 approaches in three hours. I approach 6.5s and up, solo sets only.

I haven't found any girls that talk politics. I give off a strong apolitical frame (though I can talk circles around any of these girls, politics-wise). Girls will follow your lead.

(11-07-2018 12:25 AM)GoingHAM20 Wrote:  

Damn, I've been to Pittsburgh a couple times, and I find it to be very pleasant and very underrated, but the best city you've ever daygamed in? Really?

And are there actually attractive women at Carnegie Mellon? It's a tech/engineering school.

I haven't daygamed in many places, to be fair. I'm sure it doesn't hold a candle to NYC and Miami.

But it's extremely underrated and untapped. The girls are incredibly receptive. When I was there I was getting a number from 40% of my approaches. And I was approaching the hottest girls I had ever approached. That's unheard of anywhere else. The girls simply don't get approached by guys there. There's no homeless population or street picketers or anything that interferes with doing daygame.

CMU is more than a tech/engineering school. It has a great business program, and a great arts program (that's where the freaky girls hang out). And again, the girls never get approached. The guys on campus have close to zero game - most of them are nerdy shut-ins. My FWB two summers ago was in the business school and was in a sorority.

[True Balla]

(11-06-2018 07:32 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 05:46 PM)True Balla Wrote:  

There's girls trips that come down to Disney and swiping when they're back at the hotel. Theres tons of cute girls rotating for the DCP program as well. SA is also killer in Orlando, the girls are fine.

I'd say Tampa is more similar to Orlando than other cities in that its spread out.

DCP program?
SA? South America?

Sorry - DCP is the Disney College Program. Basically, Disney has a bunch of college kids (mostly girls and gay guys) that come and work for Disney for a low paying wage. They come usually for a semester or a year, and continuously rotate out. It's a nice steady flow of young college girls that also rotate out for you, and looking to have lots of fun while they're there.

SA is Seeking Arrangement. Tinder, SA, Bumble, all the apps etc. do pretty well there. It's spread out, so day gaming sucks - but on Apps there's such a huge supply to pull from.

[Aquarius]

(11-06-2018 01:53 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

Also, to add onto this thread, I found a list that claims to rank the US cities with the most beautiful women:

1. Manhattan, NY
2. Santa Monica
3. Boston
4. Miami
5. Cleveland
6. Queens, NY (I am no sure why they broke up NYC into boroughs)
7. Tampa
8. Philadelphia

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/country...d=34654195

A few observations from this list:

1. Cleveland was mentioned which I find a little surprising because I never hear about Cleveland as a place for game.
2. Tampa. It seems like Tampa and Miami get a lot of the attention in Florida with Miami being the city with more international beauties and Tampa being the home to American hot blonde women.
3. Boston and Philly get some more love here as well.

I second that Pittsburgh, not Cleveland, has the hottest chicks among the decaying Rust Belt cities.

I'm also surprised not a single Southern city made the list. Where's Charleston? Where's Nashville? Where's Tallahassee? If Queen's is on the list for the ethnic girls, then that position should be occupied by Atlanta and its black girls instead.

[debeguiled]

@corsega

Thanks for the update on the Bay.

[TIOT12]

(11-07-2018 10:01 AM)Aquarius Wrote:  

I second that Pittsburgh, not Cleveland, has the hottest chicks among the decaying Rust Belt cities.

I'm also surprised not a single Southern city made the list. Where's Charleston? Where's Nashville? Where's Tallahassee? If Queen's is on the list for the ethnic girls, then that position should be occupied by Atlanta and its black girls instead.

There are some interesting choices for sure. I still have yet to hear anyone make a compelling argument for Cleveland. The article is vague on how these things were determined except to claim that population density on the east coast played a role. In cases like this, I would trust people's opinions on this board more than a list that doesn't even show how it calculated its results. For example, nobody has said anything about Cleveland but several have mentioned Pittsburgh. So I would put more stock in that especially for daygaming purposes.

[Aquarius]

(11-07-2018 04:48 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 10:01 AM)Aquarius Wrote:  

I second that Pittsburgh, not Cleveland, has the hottest chicks among the decaying Rust Belt cities.

I'm also surprised not a single Southern city made the list. Where's Charleston? Where's Nashville? Where's Tallahassee? If Queen's is on the list for the ethnic girls, then that position should be occupied by Atlanta and its black girls instead.

There are some interesting choices for sure. I still have yet to hear anyone make a compelling argument for Cleveland. The article is vague on how these things were determined except to claim that population density on the east coast played a role. In cases like this, I would trust people's opinions on this board more than a list that doesn't even show how it calculated its results. For example, nobody has said anything about Cleveland but several have mentioned Pittsburgh. So I would put more stock in that especially for daygaming purposes.

From your other posts on this forum, correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that you are from Oklahoma. Have you thought about Texas?

Dallas and Austin are both solid choices even though they don't have the foot traffic of the Bos-Wash corridor, SF, Seattle, and Chicago. Both cities have solid reviews from members here.

For daygaming foot traffic, I think Austin > Dallas.

For quality of girls as a whole, I think Dallas > Austin, but even Austin should be good despite the rampant liberalism, hipsterdom, and sausage fest due to how young and dynamic it is; I would also imagine obesity to be low in Austin.

[pancakemouse]

(11-07-2018 04:48 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

The article is vague on how these things were determined except to claim that population density on the east coast played a role

As someone with first-hand experience in the journalism industry, I can 100% certify that any "Top 10 Cities" lists like these are published solely as clickbait, with almost zero scientific backing. It would have been better not to post them at all.

This thread is a great example of how you can't trust science and data to give you an answer to a question like this. Boots on the ground > everything else.

[TIOT12]

(11-07-2018 06:51 PM)Aquarius Wrote:  

From your other posts on this forum, correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that you are from Oklahoma. Have you thought about Texas?

Dallas and Austin are both solid choices even though they don't have the foot traffic of the Bos-Wash corridor, SF, Seattle, and Chicago. Both cities have solid reviews from members here.

For daygaming foot traffic, I think Austin > Dallas.

For quality of girls as a whole, I think Dallas > Austin, but even Austin should be good despite the rampant liberalism, hipsterdom, and sausage fest due to how young and dynamic it is; I would also imagine obesity to be low in Austin.

No I am not from Oklahoma but know Dallas well enough. The problem with Dallas is the same problem that many other US cities have. Everything is spread out and so instead of having a concentrated area of foot traffic it has various neighborhoods that are diluted (Deep Ellum, Uptown, Lower Greenville, Frisco, Addison, etc.). It isn't that you can't find some women to approach but the problem is volume.

For example, if you were going to say where one should daygame in Dallas. What would you recommend to them?

1. White Rock Lake and the Katy Trail
2. Whole Foods and Shops at Park Lane and North Park
3. Galleria Mall on weekends
4. Dallas Art Museum

My memories of downtown is that it doesn't get enough tourist traffic to justify focusing on that aspect nor does it have a lot of safe foot traffic in general because downtown is rather scuzzy.

And I am not bashing Dallas, I am just saying it is far from the best for specifically daygaming when you compare it to NYC or European cities.

[RespectivePerspective]

With regards to Dallas and Austin, I would have to say that Austin is clearly better at this current moment in time. Dallas can be a difficult nut to crack, even for the local residents. There are different reasons for this, but it's mostly due to the sprawl, White flight, and attractions that appeal to very specific markets, without enough proximity between different attractions which would probably each attract visitors who could have just as easily gotten along going to the other "spot" that's 5-10 miles away, or whatever distance it is.

What this seems to result in is a lower potential for those chance interactions between individuals and groups who share a curiosity in the other "spot" that they may have decided against visiting at the last moment. In NY, Chicago, Miami, etc., transitioning between these zones is more fluid and intuitive, which I think encourages co-mingling and interacting with women from a position that's more favourable to you without the anxiety of having to take a car ride to some place they cannot see or conceptualise in a way as enticing or inviting as would some giant ass blinking sign in the distance, as if it's some beacon drawing power solely upon our ever shortening attention span. Dallas is just way to fragmented, but once you find some cool people to hang out with in the city (and if you're not a total creep), you should have no problem finding good people who will want to befriend you, and then your social circle from there is pretty legit.

Despite the redeeming qualities, Dallas is still more accommodating to a cosmopolitan culture of young/young-seasoned professionals that value a more general vibe of what business professionals like; i.e., customer service, profit > creativity ethos, and needing to have 'assets' to actually achieve any respectable status among peers.

Austin, on the other hand, was a very pleasant surprise for me despite what everyone has long said about the place. It's not what it used to be, and people will swear it's been going downhill for decades now, but Austin still consistently finds a way to have charm in the most unusual of places, and without you really ever feeling prepared to have your expectations exceeded so consistently. My hangup with the place is just a longstanding issue with the overly proud university alums, but this is more regional/state politics that typically wouldn't burden out of state visitors. It's not like Celtic v Rangers, but it's damn near as big a spectacle as hotwiring a station wagon to attend the Gathering of the Juggalos.

[FLGuy1988]

best day game,, Miami Beach and NYC--> Then , DC, Philly, Boston all NE Cities and Miami (More People in NE cities so more opportunities). Then also Chicago and LA maybe because of tourists and still a huge city as well.

[TIOT12]

(11-07-2018 10:43 PM)FLGuy1988 Wrote:  

best day game,, Miami Beach and NYC--> Then , DC, Philly, Boston all NE Cities and Miami (More People in NE cities so more opportunities). Then also Chicago and LA maybe because of tourists and still a huge city as well.

How would this look in terms of talent?

[TIOT12]

(11-07-2018 07:18 PM)corsega Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:48 PM)TIOT12 Wrote:  

The article is vague on how these things were determined except to claim that population density on the east coast played a role

As someone with first-hand experience in the journalism industry, I can 100% certify that any "Top 10 Cities" lists like these are published solely as clickbait, with almost zero scientific backing. It would have been better not to post them at all.

This thread is a great example of how you can't trust science and data to give you an answer to a question like this. Boots on the ground > everything else.

Understood. Most here are fairly redpilled and that extends beyond women. I think what those articles do provide is a starting point that causes others to come in and say hold on, that should be on the list but this city should. However, the list about the most walkable cities does seem to be a pretty good lead for daygame cities. Perhaps because it is a less subjective standard that can get a newspaper in trouble.