Is game harder than it was 10 years ago?

[Will_V]

I actually think @Michal makes some good points.

It's important to distill what women continue value in men in this day and age when they can have almost anything they want independently. I can attest to the value of leadership and unique experiences as being both very important ingredients to hooking a girl.

In my relationships, leadership - taking charge of difficult things, coaching her when she needs guidance, encouraging her through difficult or anxiety-inducing things, etc - is the main thing that inspires her love and loyalty.

One girlfriend of mine told me she fell in love with me when I told her I thought she could do anything she put her mind to. She came to my country, I taught her english, led her through doing unpleasant things like cold calling employers on the phone when her english was barely enough to get by at the supermarket (she eventually completed a masters degree all in english), and we went sailing and on adventures and did all sorts of things together with me as the captain and her my star lieutenant. Her strong personality was always up for a challenge, as long as it came with my attention and leadership. Even after we've broken up, she still calls me to tell me when she's done something I'd be proud of.

Where on earth could she get such an experience with other guys? A man who can provide leadership and guidance to a woman is incredibly valuable. Most men can't lead or properly encourage themselves, let alone anyone else.

As far as unique experiences are concerned, every girl I've been in an LTR with has that as pretty much her main focus, and even new girls are hungry for it. I had one seduction I've written about before where I got her home and rubbed her and caressed her and massaged her and she wouldn't take off the panties for anything, even though she was moaning and panting. When she left I almost didn't call her back, thinking it was a dud. Then I re-hooked her and invited her over, and this time we went to the supermarket together and got ingredients for chicken soup (it was a cold winters night), put it all together and sat there watching it boil in silence and mounting tension, and at some point she grabbed my hand and led me to the bed. I guarantee no guy ever invited her over to make chicken soup, and that was one of the main reasons she decided that this time was different and worth it.

I would even add in humor as well - I am not a comedian and my sense of humor is more witty than hilarious, and veers toward the cynical when I am not paying attention, yet I've made women bend over with laughter with a good build up of tension and release. I don't usually try to go for it on dates, but especially in relationships a good sense of humor does wonders and I use it generously.

Maybe I am just a romantic guy - I like to have the in-between experiences with girls, where I can enjoy the way she opens up to silly things and delights in them, surrounded by the warm tension of my presence and attention. The male gaze is the only sunlight that can make the female flower bloom, every woman needs it more than anything on earth. And what makes yours different from the rest is that you aren't gawping at her as she walks down the street, but you're enjoying the way her feminine spirit dances as you teach her, guide her, and put her in new and fun experiences, giving her a sense of validation much deeper than she can get anywhere else.

If you can find a way to take a woman for a unique ride soon after meeting you, she doesn't have to come up with much of a rationalization as to why you should be treated differently from the rest. But it does take playfulness, calibration, and not being afraid of using tension and positive pressure to your advantage, to make it clear that you aren't chasing her or creating some kind of transactional interaction.

 

[Skills]

Good questions.
So, did the game change or did we just get older?

As you get older you need to adapt strategies what work in gen x, will not neceserally work with gen z, there need to be some twicking in the approach....

The other point you had about coffee not working then you move her around it work i been saying this for years the whole point of the coffee is to make it as low pressure and informal as possible then you move them, the moving them creates compliance and warm them up, i develop something called the 3 bounce, whole focus to move them each moving stage a different strategy....

A lot of women now a days make a lot of money trying to up them and compete is a flawed strategy, there is no way for her to know how your bk account or portfolio looks, focus on a strong subcommunication, and making her invest through sex.... again after 3-5 sex sessions it will not matter much..

 

[ulrich]

If anyone here thinks women are now hypergamous or they have become much less loyal than in past times, I strongly suggest to go and read “The Three Musketeers”.

Among other things, the plot revolves around everyone having affairs in 1600’s century France.

 

[Warped Mindless]

If anyone here thinks women are now hypergamous or they have become much less loyal than in past times, I strongly suggest to go and read “The Three Musketeers”.

Among other things, the plot revolves around everyone having affairs in 1600’s century France.

People always look at the last through rose colored glasses.

Ancient Greece and Rome were both rampant with causal sex. Most countries probably were.

Know what American history books leave out about the 1700s and 1800s… everyone was fucking everyone like crazy.

Women are not more sexual or hypergamous now than they were before.

 

[Skills]

If anyone here thinks women are now hypergamous or they have become much less loyal than in past times, I strongly suggest to go and read “The Three Musketeers”.

Among other things, the plot revolves around everyone having affairs in 1600’s century France.

The hypergamy crap none sense has been debunked

 

[Don Giovanni]

If anyone here thinks women are now hypergamous or they have become much less loyal than in past times, I strongly suggest to go and read “The Three Musketeers”.

Among other things, the plot revolves around everyone having affairs in 1600’s century France.

People always look at the last through rose colored glasses.

Ancient Greece and Rome were both rampant with causal sex. Most countries probably were.

Know what American history books leave out about the 1700s and 1800s… everyone was fucking everyone like crazy.

Women are not more sexual or hypergamous now than they were before.

I would like to add renaissance to the list. Pope Alexander VI was known to host big orgies, nudity and sexuality were reintroduced to art, prostitution was legal... It was so bad they discovered syphilis.

People were always fucking and will always be fucking.

 

[Bismarck]

I think a HUGE part of men not having sex as much anymore is the dominance of cell phones, internet, and computers.

It has changed the dynamics for both men and women:

- For men, it's given the average man a very easy "out" to sexual frustration through the form of pornography. Rather than work to seduce women, he can fire up a video, a game, or a VR scene of his favorite sexual fantasy and just skip right to pleasure with minimal effort or expenditure. Why spend time going out and talking to women and risk getting shot down if you can just spend a few minutes on your computer, or VR device, or cellphone and get your rocks off easily that way? Additionally, the majority of men who are not high-value to women will find the distractions of video gaming and pornography far more appealing than facing the harsh reality of their value and status not being able to bring in the women they crave. This is not helped by media, both online and traditional, pedestalizing the most beautiful women, desensitizing the average man to the average woman, who in times past, before the Internet and Television, would be more than happy to accept an average woman as a partner, but is now influenced by media into thinking that he needs, and deserves, the most high-value, beautiful, youthful woman.

- For women, it's basically inflated their value and self-worth to stratospheric levels due to constant barrage of validation they receive from posting pictures on Instagram and Facebook and other social media. Women thrive on attention and these social media platforms give them copious amounts of it. Before the Internet, they had to actually go out and dress up and walk around and flirt with men to get this attention, and in a given year the average women might get a handful of men, either in her school, or work environment, or sometimes in the street, to give them the attention they crave. Now all they have to do is post a provocative picture online and sit back in their pajamas and watch the thirsty comments come rolling in. This reduces their desire to engage in actual socialization with the average man in real life, and when they do want actual sex or a relationship, and not just validation, they will narrow their focus to only a select few high-value men.

Nothing new here, really, except that graphics on newer PC and console games keep getting more realistic, especially now with VR. I popped my cherry at 19 and at 14 would sit playing The Sims and Doom 3 on my PC, masturbating to hentai games and girl-on-girl action, meanwhile at school I had crushes on two 10s that I was shy around. I did manage to suck on some nipples though aged 15/16 or so largely thanks to the theatre in which I was heavily involved.

On your second point, Gun is right that offering her a unique experience (and by that we mean, applying Cialdini's principle of scarcity, and being different to 99% of guys, including those who usually try to chat her up) trumps getting her ego validated by drooling simps digitally. I disagree with your conclusion that "when they do want actual sex [...] they will narrow their focus to only a select few high-value men". A high-value man, whatever that means, doesn't have to be "popular" on IG or any of that shit.

 

[Bismarck]

Your whole mindset is fucked up. All this talk about what you provide to her… what about what she provides to you?

Wanna know what so many men have so much trouble getting laid? Because they are to busy trying to figure out how to prove themselves to women. What do you offer her? Your self! If yourself is lame then go fix that.
Stop trying to impress women, go see if they impress you.

Agreed. I recommend Michal read Black Players: the Secret World of Black Pimps for more on the appropriate mindset of a pimp. Or Iceberg Slim's Pimp: the Story of my Life.

You have to provide her with a unique experience (tight fundamentals, SECT, low bass voice, unblinking lover EC, etc., but also influence (emotional stims, immersion)) and that includes making her qualify (aka make her show why she deserves YOU (prizing, as Swinggcat used to say)).

 

[Beck Bass]

Black Players: the Secret World of Black Pimps

That sounds like my type of read, gonna add that to the list (after that "Cookin' with Coolio" book I'm trying to get a hold of lmao).

Maybe I am just a romantic guy - I like to have the in-between experiences with girls, where I can enjoy the way she opens up to silly things and delights in them, surrounded by the warm tension of my presence and attention.

Yeah, women crave romance, but most guys have a kind crappy idea about it, it's more about creating something unique for her to feel special and like she's growing with you (and hopefully she really is) than the cliche stuff like flowers and serenades and whatnot. Crazy story with the girl that learned English with you, I can only imagine how strong her bond to you was.

 

[Vitalist]

Sorry I haven’t!

I have quite a few post I’m supposed to write but haven’t been able to get to them.

But the general outline is:

Use curiosity bait over text to get her to respond -> tease her and bust her balls a little and just be fun for a few text-> aim to set up a FaceTime meet as soon as possible. Usually it works best to set up a FaceTime meet on Monday - Wednesday nights as she likely has nothing going on-> use FaceTime kinda like you would a simple coffee date. The goal is to build intrigue about you and to make her comfortable talking to and seeing you. Sometimes a few short video calls work better than one longer one-> use texting and or her Snapchat to get sexual after a good FaceTime call. Use pictures (not of your dick) and flirt hardcore. Get her horny (I’ll show examples in my texting guide) -> pitch or reaffirm the meet up at either your place or hers. The FaceTime calls often will allow you to short circuit the regular public place first date and skip to going right to your place or hers for “Netflix”

Hi @Warped Mindless, did you ever post that texting guide?

 

[Magic]

IMO Game definitely works, seduction is real and takes time but not not sure about Pickup. I always thought pickup is nothing but crazy horny guys and girls meeting at night club to find a partner for casual sex. These days I guess apps and website are used for hookups and it is easier to get laid these days. For girls it was always easier. Moreover most girls these days can also see when guys are trying to pick them, escalating and so on … so pickup is not really game anymore.

 

[ulrich]

Moreover most girls these days can also see when guys are trying to pick them, escalating and so on … so pickup is not really game anymore.

You would believe it but nope… some girls are a little knuckleheads

 

[HammerEditor]

I know some guys (anecdotally) who are even worse than 1 in 200. Most of these guys have above-average SMV as well.

What was your ratio when you started out? How many sets did it take to get your first lay, then your second lay, then your third lay? There seems to be very little data on what the average learning curve for daygame is like.

I started out 3 months ago, have done 74 daygame sets and I personally think my first lay will be between the 200th-300th approach. Are those realistic expectations? I try to get the most out of my sets by replaying the audio and getting coaching. I would say I have 7/10 SMV and my environment has a similar culture to London. The average chick I approach is a 7/10 in looks and is 20 years old.

 

[HammerEditor]

My ratio was exactly the same in 2022 as it was in 2021 - 1 in 24.

I had my first lay on my 4th approach. She was a 6/10, nothing too special.

Realistic expectations will depend massively on 3 factors:
- Your SMV
- The SMV of the girls you're approaching
- Your age
- The age of the girls you're approaching
- How good your game is (how good your approach was, your body language, your texting, etc)

As an example, if a 5'1 ugly guy with sloppy game and a weak frame is exclusively approaching supermodels, his approach-to-lay could be as bad as 1 in 1,000.
If a 6'3 good looking guy with self-confidence and experience seducing girls is approaching 7s and 8s his approach to lay could be as good as 1 in 15.

I had already had 90 lays before I ever did my first daygame cold approach, so that also helped me progress a little faster than some others.

Thank you, that was very useful. I get your point about the ratios hugely varying depending on the situation. But I've seen a video of somebody quoting Tom Torero (R.I.P)'s comment that the average daygamer should not expect a lay before they do 200 approaches. Todd V also hinted in a video 2 years ago that a beginner probably won't get laid in the first 100 sets. I've also heard that any ratio above 1-in-40 is advanced level game.

Some other hard data I found was A.G. Hayden implying that college girls are a lot more flaky than the average mall/street/city square woman. That would make sense because they're at peak SMV. But if I did game in, say, New York City, even though it might be easier to go from number to date, going from approach to number is probably harder.

 

[PaulieFlyn10]

Hi all,

I wanted to chime in on this topic since I saw some pretty comical replies on page 1 of the thread.

I believe the claims from @Teevster (claiming a consistent 1 in 5 approach-to-lay ratio) and others are utter nonsense. Perhaps these guys have shit memories, don't track their stats so they're pulling numbers out of their ass (common with nightgamers) or don't count warmups or approaches where they got blown out, etc (which is very common, btw).

I'm in the UK and I've been doing daygame for 2 years now and am active in the community here. I've personally met (in real life) or spoken with around 15 guys doing daygame in London / Europe, and know their stats in intimate detail, as well as my own of course. I keep mine rigorously on a spreadsheet and have seen the same of others. I've winged with many of these guys and traded war stories, even travelled abroad with some of them. I've seen the girls they fuck, seen the texts they send, etc. Even met some of these girls in the flesh. They've seen my girls as well.

These guys are all very active, as am I. 2 are daygame coaches, both of whom are banging hot girls. The rest are enthusiasts, including me. We're all out there on the streets regularly, nearly all of us Tweet our experiences (if you look up daygame on Twitter you'll find most of the aformentioned daygamers).

Roywalker
Sevendaygame
Broodingsea
MrWhite

Etc etc. There are plenty more. Not to mention Tom Torero (RIP) and Nick Krauser from the past and their reported results.

NONE of these guys (that I know) had an approach-to-lay ratio from daygame cold approach better than 1 in 18 last year. 1 in 18 was the best I'm aware of in London. Mine was 1 in 24. I had a ratio of 1 in 10 for a VERY brief period in February > May 2022 (5 lays from around 45 approaches), but it didn't last. I know some guys (anecdotally) who are even worse than 1 in 200. Most of these guys have above-average SMV as well.

We all use London daygame model as standard. Direct openers.

If anyone thinks they can maintain a 1 in 10 approach-to-lay ratio in London (over the span of a year or more), please, by all means, come over here and wing with some of us and show us how it's done! I'd love to see it. I'm quite confident it won't work out how you think it will.

I call BS on many others in this thread. Unless you keep rigorous stats and have receipts of your lays, I highly doubt any of the claims. UNLESS you're banging girls who are sub-7/10.

I definitely disagree with this. Your style of game: london model (direct game) could also be affecting your results.

Have you tried other types of games? Like indirect? Use of situational and curiosity openers etc?

Yes, day game has the lowest results in cross gaming but i think you'll have different results if you incorporated other styles of game...

And if you tried other daygame models other than london daygame

 

[Gunwitch]

I'm in the UK and I've been doing daygame for 2 years now

Well i've been doing it since the last century, you're just another victim/example that DIRECT BLOWS.


Gun

 

[PaulieFlyn10]

It depends on so many factors mate. One guy could get 1 in 100, another 1 in 600. It really depends what your starting base is. I was chatting to a guy in a pub in London recently who had done 300 and only had a handful of dates and no lays. It's a very random process - don't let the sharks / marketeers on this forum tell you that there's a perfect system which allows you to always get a certain ratio - it doesn't exist, that's just American marketing nonsense - they were peddling it in 2005-2008 and they're still doing it today.

Here is the stats James Tusk shared (for daygame in London): https://project-tusk.com/blogs/the-tusk-diaries/realistic-daygame-statistics

For him, (as a very high SMV guy) in London, it works out to around 1 in 30. Abroad, I'm sure he does far better. In the former Soviet Union or Latin America he'll probably get 1 in 10. It's all relative. But he's been doing it a long time (he is a former student of Torero).

Re: what Torero said - back in Tom's 'glory days' (I suppose you could say 2010-2013), I imagine most of his students would have been men who were quite anxious, shy and withdrawn, with very little experience with girls. They were probably on the lower end of the SMV scale as well. For them, it may have taken several hundred approaches, but for a guy without those issues, it could be far less.

Food for thought: Nick Krauser's first 1000 approaches netted him TWO lays. Yes you read that correctly. But after that his ratios improved dramatically.

Have you tried other daygame models? Or you're just stuck with Torero london direct Day game style?

Or do you feel london is the toughest place to game so you keep referencing it? I've seen great ratios not just in this forum but from other seducers

For example I've seen 3/5 from cold approach and 3/7 too... I've also seen consistent 3/3 and 5/5 (though i can't say how long those lasted)
Sinn for example had 16 lays befor in a month.

Again, i maintain that a lot of your results is due to the style of game you're applying and HOW you've been executing it.

For me situational and curiosity openers have been way more effective. And it's just the opener that's indirect NOT the entire conversation... you're still going to smoothly transition into sexual frames, connecting and showing intent as you talk to her

 

[Zoro]

It depends on so many factors mate. One guy could get 1 in 100, another 1 in 600. It really depends what your starting base is. I was chatting to a guy in a pub in London recently who had done 300 and only had a handful of dates and no lays. It's a very random process - don't let the sharks / marketeers on this forum tell you that there's a perfect system which allows you to always get a certain ratio - it doesn't exist, that's just American marketing nonsense - they were peddling it in 2005-2008 and they're still doing it today.

Here is the stats James Tusk shared: https://project-tusk.com/blogs/the-tusk-diaries/realistic-daygame-statistics

For him, (as a very high SMV guy) in London, it works out to around 1 in 30. Abroad, I'm sure he does far better. In the former Soviet Union or Latin America he'll probably get 1 in 10. It's all relative. But he's been doing it a long time (he is a former student of Torero).

Re: what Torero said - back in Tom's 'glory days' (I suppose you could say 2010-2013), I imagine most of his students would have been men who were quite anxious, shy and withdrawn, with very little experience with girls. They were probably on the lower end of the SMV scale as well. For them, it may have taken several hundred approaches, but for a guy without those issues, it could be far less.

Food for thought: Nick Krauser's first 1000 approaches netted him TWO lays. Yes you read that correctly. But after that his ratios improved dramatically.

So how do you explain people like my friend who does not study game and every time I talk to him he’s met a new girl he’s hooking up with. He does not daygame, he just goes about his day and walks everywhere (good walkable city). The new girl he’s seeing is probably the only new girl he’s talked to that day.

I’ll explain it. He’s very socially adept.

Direct daygame, spreadsheets, spam approaching, these are not things that socially well adjusted people do, but that is why the study of game started. To get better.

I would bet your results are poor, because you are not really connecting with these women on a deep level.

Indirect daygame is much more socially congruent and that’s why it works much better. Preopeners, getting your own mind and life right, only approaching women that you’re genuinely attracted to, these things are also factors.

That friend I was talking about, creates DEEP connections with people, not just women. But it’s why he can just walk around and bring a new attractive woman into his life.

Upon reflecting, my game is shit when I’m just approaching half hearted, got shit going on in my life and am not emotionally present.

But when I’ve got those things settled, I can and have done 1 approach for the day and got a date from it.