Traveling tourist girls and the fate of daygame

Many reports seem to find that daygame, and game generally, works less well than it did before Feb. 2020, and these reports come from experienced, knowledgable, and previously successful guys. Why is game worse? I’ve been reading game blogs or forums for at least a decade, probably a bit longer, and most cold approach guys report that tourist/traveler girls make up a pretty solid percentage, maybe the majority, of the girls they get traction from… which may be why it seems to work better in tourist destinations like NYC or London. This girl came from online, not daygame, but she was visiting and therefore more open than usual to meeting random men, such as myself. Right now, for obvious reasons, tourism is down, and, with so much misplaced vaccine hesitancy fueling COVID’s spread, tourism is likely to stay down for the next month, at least, and maybe longer.[1]

So “cold approach” and daygame may not be anything like they were prior to Feb. 2020, until we reach true herd immunity, either from vaccination or infection. And if you count not just the US but other countries, many of which don’t have adequate vaccine quantities, it may be a while, sadly. Over time, I’ve not formally tracked the number of field reports that mention tourist girls, but enough say “She was in town for five days” for me to think tourists make up a disproportionate number of daygame successes… this makes sense, too, because girls who are traveling, especially alone, are probably bored and more open to new experiences offered by charming strangers than girls who are already enmeshed in their lives. Plus, the girl doesn’t have to worry about reputation damage, or what her moron friends think (girls are often their own worst enemies, and yet they can’t help themselves).

One guy observed in private that cold approach more generally filters for introverts, and introverts are less likely to go out at all than they were pre-pandemic. Extroverts already have broad social circles and are typically less susceptible to cold approach. Put together the lack of tourism and the hiding of introvert girls, and it’s likely that, for a time, daygame works more poorly than it did. The pandemic may also have pushed more girls into online dating, much as it pushed more businesses into work from home, and more people and companies away from the hellscape that is San Francisco.

This post is akin to May 2020’s How I see dating, girls, COVID-19, and the quarantines, right now, where I looked at how the supply shock of hot single girls would likely raise the implied “price” of game, and how the smart move for girls would be to get a quarantine boyfriend, and ride him out for the pandemic. That prediction seems to have been correct, though I thought girls would ditch their quarantine boyfriends by June, and that prediction, though not stated publicly, seems to have been wrong.

People are bad at reading, so let’s be clear that this post does NOT argue that 1. daygame is bad. 2. daygame doesn’t work. 3. you shouldn’t learn or practice game. 4. nothing works, so you might as well give up and play video games. But game’s success will vary based on where you are, who you are, and what the larger cultural, social, and economic conditions might be.

---

[1]Vaccine hesitancy shows a basic inability to evaluate risks, too: the choice at this point is between vaccination and infection, the risks of the latter are enormous, even though the media foolishly magnifies the risks of the former. Much misinformation circulates online, and Brandolini’s law states, “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” That said, many institutions have performed so poorly in information and knowledge terms, and been wrong about so much, that those failures fuel distrust and uncertainty. The institutions dedicated to narrative over facts have been worse. And many governmental bodies encouraged simple carb consumption, for decades… read “The sugar conspiracy“… “In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?”