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]

Why Twitter’s Brooding Sea is likely a faker, and some other musings on the top of game

The other day I went on a Twitter talk about how you shouldn’t believe everything you read, and then I stopped being oblique and said there’s a “daygame” twitter account under the name “BroodingSea” (BS) that is likely… creative… in terms of its relationship with the real world. Another  daygamer guy asked privately why BS is unlikely to be a good role model, and why I think he is, if not necessarily fake exactly, then not telling us everything. There are a bunch of reasons… 1. His results are too good. 2. His supposed pickups are way too good/smooth. 3. He seems not to get any of the negative streaks other guys do. 4. There are almost no details in any of his stories. While it’s possible to get “yes girls” who like you / are horny at that moment / fuck you with much game on your part, they are rare (in some respects this girl was a “yes girl”… it can happen, but every girl? No). At some point, Twitterers called BS on how unlikely his stories are, and then he began integrating more supposed “failures.”

Put all those pieces together and the bullshit siren should be going off louder than a Marine Corps drill sergeant the first morning at Basic. Unfortunately, BS disappeared, so we’re unlikely to see further revealing statements from him. He may have made the mistake of using some of his primary contact information in online profiles… always go with the burners… despite the improbability of his stories I don’t support doxxing, including of people I disagree with.

So what is going on with him? He’s not the first and won’t be the last guy with extremely improbable stories. Most likely, one or more of of several things is at play… 1. He’s paying / using some money in his “game.” I don’t think this is bad (if a guy wants to do it, fine), but he should say as much and describe the role money/payments play. If he has sufficient money to pay, he can get a lot of lays that way, particularly in eastern europe, or with eastern europeans online. A lot of girls who are in the partial escort market have a sliding scale in their minds, where the more masculine/attractive the guy is, the less he pays (not all girls… some are super professional… using some money may also allow him to generate the unique pictures that can be claimed as daygame lays). Years ago I did something like what BS may be doing, for $500/mo…. in a number of ways I got lucky quickly… and I probably shouldn’t have done any money transfer at all… but I did it and it should be admitted for the sake of completeness. Back to BS, 2. He’s probably mostly online, with great pics, and getting girls who are much less hot than he says/implies (I have slummed it at times, usually when I’m horny and some girl shows up who’s less attractive than her pictures but also requires minimal work… not proud but it’s true…). I think he posted a pic or two of himself in which he appears to be jacked. If those pics are honest, he’ll be able to get girls -2 or -3 relative to the ones he should be able to get from the real world. 3. A bunch of his stuff is just made up. You know how people in real life who are full of shit often tell skeleton stories, and when you ask follow-up questions, you can see that they’d never considered an obvious point? Brooding Sea’s stories look like that. Some could be authentic… a bunch don’t seem like they are, though.

Prolific online dating selects for delusional chicks

Here is a specific example of the kind of statement I see frequently and I’m sure you have too, if you hang out in pickup and men’s Internet:

Part of the problem is that American chicks are just super fucking flighty, stupid, and picky: selection bias means the chicks on online dating are going to be more flaky, stupid, and picky than chicks who have their shit together.

Two of the most interesting girls I’ve met in the last four years or so, Short Dancer and Ms. Slav, both say they’ve never done online dating. Never. Zero times. No Tinder. They meet men (and women, for Ms. Slav) in real life, at parties, etc. They could be lying, sure, but I don’t know why they would. Both of them have reasonable expectations of men, in my opinion, and they’re both hot. Not hard 9, Playboy-bunny hot… but very few guys would be unhappy with either. Some of the most delusional girls I know, however, have done online dating… a lot of it. Just talking to girls and noticing the ones who complain about online/not being able to get a boyfriend, versus the ones who have reasonable expectations and try to like guys in real life (as opposed to defaulting to NOT liking them and disqualifying them), shows huge differences between the two. I suspect I also have unusual experience among guys writing about the game online because I know and have met a lot of girls, so I get to hear them talk, think, and cogitate. That means I get to hear some delusional thinking, sure, yes… but their words and actions, parsed correctly, do yield insight, over time, when aggregated.

Reasonable girls know there are tons of decent guys out there. Guys who are employed and have normal bodies/personalities. If a girl is not f**king nuts, she won’t be online for long, cause she’ll meet a guy who is okay… and she’ll start dating him. Maybe he won’t be a male 9 and spit tight super entertaining game… but if she’s able to look past some initial fumbling, she gets a boyfriend. If not, and if she has unreasonable expectations… she is online, a LOT. Girls who reject every guy who starts with “Hey” or “how are you?”, are going to select for guys who are clever players. Girls who reject every guy who isn’t at least 1 and ideally 2 points above them in terms of sexual market value (SMV) will spend a lot of time online dating, cause their market isn’t clearing. They will get a lot of sex from higher status guys… who will then drop them… leading them to complain about men… while never looking at their own behavior.

By contrast… I’m thinking of this girl I’ve known for a while, Jane, who was like a 6…. and did online dating for like 5+ years (not sure what she’s up to these days cause I lost interest)… yet despite being a 6, Jane had the personality of a bitchy 8.5+. She was online constantly, with her f**ked up psychology, going through guys and complaining about guys. Her friends were similar… all the friends stated that they wanted boyfriends but somehow none of them could quite hang onto them. They were all young, and some adopted the modern feminist man-hating ethos and pose, which further hurts their ability to get boyfriends… you can’t date a person whose whole class you have taught yourself to hate (men with an underlying hatred of women also do poorly… a lot of older women with declining SMV become bitter towards men as a class, which is a reason they’re often dangerous to date). Jane and her friends are the kinds of girls Red Pill guys complain about.

The Short Dancers and Ms. Slavs of the world… RP guys don’t complain about (well, they might complain about Ms. Slav’s love of sex and uninterest in monogamy, but that’s another story…). The Short Dancers of the world are probably invisible to most Red Pill guys. She’s spent most of her time in a relationship.

The Market for Lemons is a famous paper describing how online dating markets have evolved. In my experience, in the 2009 – 2015 period, online was weird/unusual/thin enough that a lot of chicks on it either had niche tastes or really needed to meet new guys, cause they weren’t offline. They had sufficiently few options that they weren’t totally nuts. Now, however, the online markets are much thicker but normal chicks want to get out of them quickly…. and they do. They maybe spend a few weeks on Tinder. They are not idiots, so they go out on dates pretty quickly and evaluate the guy in person. They know there are lots of decent guys out there. They pick one and get offline. If he is image matched to them, the relationship goes well.

Example: last time I checked, Short Dancer seemed to be dating a male 6, for some reason. No idea why… could be that she wants monogamy real bad and is willing to compromise to get it. She’s at least a high 7 and I’d give her a solid 8. But if she is serious about monogamy, she is likely getting it, and the guy is probably stunned to be getting a girl as hot as her. I think there are more girls like Short Dancer out there than we give credit for… but they are almost all in relationships, if they want to be. If “Katie,” the girl I wrote about a few days ago, were young and in the market today, I bet she would do no or minimal online dating.

It’s easy to sort girls who are really interested in meeting a guy, because they want to meet pretty quickly, even for a 45-minute coffee. The flakey ones want to have long, drawn-out, and pointless online conversations with guys (you can guess who stays on the market).

I have also heard daygame guys say that, if they do a lot of daygame, and then do online, they will sometimes run into girls they daygamed online. And those are much more productive matches.

With this particular girl–let’s call her Double Take–we text a bit on Tinder and then I ask for her number, which she gives. I set up the date for the next day, she agrees, game on.

While we’re texting that day, however, it comes out that I’ve day gamed her! She rejected me, of course, because chicks are rational lol.

I honestly didn’t remember, but she insists I tried to get her number sometime before and that was why she swiped on me.

Obviously daygame is not relevant during coronavirus, but at some point coronavirus will pass or we will get treatments for it, and the game will remain.

Smart guys, today, are figuring out how to get offline to meet chicks, or combine offline/online in a smart way. Even back when online worked fairly well for me, I always did some combination of online and offline. I have also been interested in photography for a long time, and that has helped. Even if you are a good-looking guy, if your photos don’t show it, you will fail. There is serious data showing this. Shirtless bathroom selfies don’t cut it. I have pics of me where I probably look like a male 5 and pics where I might look like a male 9. Maybe that’s an exaggeration, but ones that look great. None of the best-looking ones were taken by a cell phone, either, I want to emphasize. The camera is useless if you’re not doing anything interesting, but doing a lot of interesting things and not having visual evidence of it is not useful for online dating. Maybe that sounds like a lot of work, but there is no way around doing the work for a non-elite guy. Girls complaining about online usually have not done the work, internally or externally.

Gay guy hits on me as I walk back from coffee

I was walking back from coffee this morning when a gay guy shouted at me, “How do you do it?” I asked him, “Do what?” He basically gave me an up and down motion and was like, “THAT.” I laughed and told him “practice,” somewhat nonsensically, and kept walking. But it gave me a little sparkle. “Still got it!” I thought.

Obviously I’m not gay and there is absolutely nothing that that guy could have done to seduce me, but I bring this up to encourage guys who are unsatisfied with their sex and romantic lives to try daygame (this is a bit hypocritical because I have not done a huge amount of daygame… but I have done some). Many chicks will react the way I did, pleasantly, and they’ll be kind of flattered, even if there is a 0% chance they will sleep with you. Many guys seem to think that chicks are out to be silently mean, cruel and judgmental. Most are not. You will get some blowouts but in my experience probably the most common reaction is a bit of confusion.

You may notice that I was a bit confused and so my response didn’t really make sense, but that’s okay. Some chicks will thank you for stopping them and a larger number will walk away with a smile on their face. Many women are complaining to their friends that they have no way to meet guys. Be the way. Most women won’t take any real action whatsoever to improve their lives and rely on guys to direct their lives, then find themselves frustrated when no guy appears to direct them.

Be that guy.

There is an extreme shortage of good vibes in the world. Are you learning how to make them happen?

“Why Online Dating Can Feel Like Such an Existential Nightmare” means do daygame

“Why Online Dating Can Feel Like Such an Existential Nightmare” means, “Do daygame, bro.” If every chode is online and scared to approach chicks in person, you can exploit this market inefficiency by learning to approach chicks in person.

Way back when I first experimented with online dating, it seemed that online dating was a market inefficiency in that unusually horny chicks who wanted casual sex would hop online because they could pursue it without social consequences. Introverted chicks could meet guys without having to shed their introversion.

Now… everyone is online, real world social skills have degraded, and that implies daygame is a big improvement. My own recent experience online was epically different than my experiences ten years ago. Good strategies change as the larger environment changes. There are still probably positive aspects online and as a complement to your real game it could help. Looks more and more like a dumpster fire to me.

Tom Torero’s memoir-textbook “Daygame”

I’m smacking my head after reading this:

I asked her to bring me a present costing no more than £1, and I’d do the same. It’s an “investment routine” that I’v used many times since, which gets the girls to commit to the date and not flake – they spend the week thinking of what to get you.

The quote is from Tom Torero’s Daygame and the suggestion is brilliant and easy. I wish I’d thought of this ten years ago. Being good at anything is the accumulation of thousands of small details. This suggestion is one and it must improve pipeline retention. People can also usually only hold a single thing in their mind at a time, so if she’s thinking about the present she’s not thinking about whether she ought to flake.

If you are doing any amount of game and earn more than $5 per hour you need to read this book, as it may save you many many hours through suggestions like the one above. The ones you find most useful will be different from the ones I find most useful. Guys will get more from reading one comprehensive book than 100 random, fragmented blog posts. Daygame puts many seduction pieces together. The simplest parts of game are the very beginning (when there isn’t much to do apart from opener, vibe, and stack) and the very end (the actual sex). It’s the middle where the action happens and for that reason most of Daygame is about the middle, just like most of the Internet posts are about the beginning or end, where guys need the least instruction.

There are too many lessons in Daygame to list them all, but I like: “Either interactions go well, or they’re just funny stories.” Exactly right and you have permission to take the pressure off. Be fizzy and exciting. There are an infinite number of possibilities out there and while I’ve done many things right, I’ve also spent too much of my life taking things with women too seriously. That has almost always been a mistake. Learn to let go and be light, rather than heavy.

Some of the lessons regularly readers of this blog-memoir will recognize: “This whole story, and other ones in the book, show that deleting details is a bad move, as you never know when circumstances change and a number sparks to life again.” Remember “Snapchat in Game?” That’s what I’m saying there. Girls are mercurial and pretty random, and you never know when one is going to turn back around into you. It is unwise to rely exclusively on rebounds but you will get some when you get good.

The psychology behind seduction and seducers is also of interest, at least to me. In the beginning Torero writes that “By the age of 23 I had slept with 2 women.” No wonder he later became a PUA. I had a relatively normal adolescent and college experience, as I started having sex on the early side of normal and never stopped. I waas at or close to what PUA guys call “abundance mentality.”I had crushes and oneitis problems, like most guys, but my past is nothing like Torero’s. Unlike many guys I’ve never had a long drought (except in my 20s when my now-ex had our second daughter, but that’s another story). That may be why I’m tiring of the game and grind while some older guys still love it. I feel like I’ve done it too long.

I don’t want to claim that I was a master seducer. I wasn’t. I’m not now. My younger self mostly had what I would now call eco system game: school and sports. Because I was obsessed with my sport I built up a solid body and solid group of people I knew. That continued into a job involving it, and into college. Also, as players know, the better your body the better your dating life will go (within limits and subject to diminishing returns like every other activity… I have known gym rats who’d be better served cutting their two hours a day in the gym and meeting actual girls) and that is particularly true among younger girls. Of course looks alone are not enough and especially for women a guy’s looks are linked to his status. But I do think I’ve coasted on looks and things like quitting sugar have been to a boon to both my physical self and confidence. Looks are also more important for online dating than off, in my experience, and quitting sugar while lifting assists here too.

At the end of the book Torero is a sage:

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that the better your vibe, the better your approaches and dates go, and the better they go, the better your vibe. I felt like I was indestructible.

It’s fun reading these hybrid memoir-textbooks, as they teach me about the writer but also about the reader. My game has never been as tight as many of these guys, and there is a concept or slider in pop psychology that may explain why: some people are “satisficers” and others are “maximizers.” As the terms imply, satisficers keep trying until the satisfaction point for their drive or desire, while maximizers want to reach the highest possible level or state. For someone doing game a maximizer seeks some combination of the absolute hottest, younger, most loyal girls, or maybe the most extreme experiences (like three ways).

Satisficers however seek “good enough” and stop there and that has mostly described me. Which explains why I have never had the energy to really press for achievements like Torero’s. To be sure I’ve had success and some crazy stories, a few of which I’ve shared here, but nothing like the quantity of women described in Daygame. Generally I find one I like and get into a mini relationship that generally lasts three to twenty-four months. Then I begin cranking again.

At first I wasn’t consciously doing this, but over time I realized it. I think I am just too lazy to bother getting really good, but this doesn’t bother me much and I’m glad there are guys who go all the way. Reading about the Elon Musks of seduction is fascinating. I’ve had some high eights and nines and while they were wonderful, the truth is that when I’m in a woman I don’t care that much about whether she’s a decent seven or a high eight. The latter is better but in my life, especially now, there aren’t a lot of high eights out there. A while ago I dated a girl who was 19 and IMO a solid 8, with things only breaking down about 20 months in when she demanded to move in and I said no. But even with a solid 8, by the 50th or 100th sex session a guy acclimates to her body. She normalizes.

Back to Torero. Interspersed among the stories are big-picture ideas, like this:

When it comes to seduction, girls don’t want logic, they want emotions. The problem is that guys approach dating and daygame from a logical perspective, when really what they should be getting better at is seeing it from the female perspective.

Absolutely. Definitely an error I made when I was younger. The book is filled with mentions of mistakes I have made. If the next generation of guys internalize these ideas maybe they will avoid the mistakes. Most guys of course are too lazy to read books, so they will make the same errors, but the knowledge is there.

If I have a criticism of the book it is that it doesn’t look enough at the dark side. Intense gaming can be isolating and very few guys share the need to do intense game. In addition I read one of Krauser’s books in which he describes Torero going deep into the void in the 2012 – 13 period. That has been excised from this book, so one would never know it. Almost all positive things also have their shadow, and the lack of shadow here makes me doubt it more than I otherwise would.

Torero also mentions going to Oxford and studying with Richard Dawkins, but he eventually becomes a primary school teacher. Perhaps the UK is different from the U.S., but in the U.S. it’s very rare for graduates of elite universities to go into low status, low pay professions like primary school teaching. So why’d he do it? What led him there? We don’t know. Maybe it isn’t important. But it seems strange from an American reader’s eyes.