I'm kind of a big data and numbers guy and came up with this after a fair amount of dates, lays and plate spinning off OLD. This is a general rule that more often than not turns out to be true.. I'm aware there are exceptions to this rule (and every other rule). I've met up with chicks from OLD and been pleasantly surprised to find they actually look better in person. This is rare. This is no gripe against OLD. It just is what it is. I do fine on OLD, and source girls outside of OLD too so this isn't a complaint.
The 20% rule is this:
Women believe there sexual market value is 20% higher higher than it actually is AND the woman will be 20% less attractive in real life than their OLD pictures suggest.
Broken down, it looks like this for women on OLD:
Women believe their sexual market value is actually 20% higher than it actually is.
I.E a girl on OLD who is a 6 actually believes herself to be a 7.2 (6*1.2). Most people already know the reasons. On OLD, depending on what information you've read is anywhere between a 6:1 or 9:1 male to female ratio. So, desperate guys have given them far more positive attention than they deserve. They would not get this same attention where ratios are more balanced.
Women are 20% less attractive in real life than their pictures make them out to be.
They have taken massive amounts of pictures, gotten all of the angles just right, somehow concealing a lot of body fat. So, if they appear to be a 7 online, they are actually going to be a 5.6 (7 *.8) in person. I went out with a girl last night and it just surprised me how well she pulled it off. In her pictures, her arms looked thin and toned, which to me suggested a trimmer, athletic looking girl. When we met, she was carrying extra weight in her ass and thighs. Her face looked more bloated in person.
So, these factors obviously create a woman that has a highly inflated view of herself. Men then give them far more attention than they deserve compounding the problem. ..
Only thing I would add to this is that the 0-10 scoring system is pretty flawed. If you’re getting into 5.6 as a score, you have to be quite sure that all participants score in the same way.
As an example, I am not into this massive a$$ and booty thing. It seems all the rage these days for women to be borderline obese in the backside dept. What many men would term a 9 for me would be a 3, I may not even want to go there. Beyoncé or that WAP chick, for example.
I like nice slender legs, flat stomachs etc. some of my booty loving mates would say “give her a sandwich”
So, women also have this system. A 9 to some may be the chiselled Chad. To others, it’s the scientist, book reader type guy.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the whole “OLD is just for chads“ thing. Yes, prob for hookups. Those kind of girls seeking those kind of things want chads.
I am not a chad, I’m a slightly tubby guy, quite tall, good job, but no chad. I had a great time on OLD when I stopped chasing girls who want to be models, and stopped any pretence I was a chad, stopped 90% of “game” and just looked for women who were into me for me.
One of which is now my wife, a genuine 10 in my eyes, 11 years younger, hot, educated. She would have never gone for a chad.
so anyway, I’m just questioning the scoring system as we all have our own criteria and believe me, some women’s criteria is not what you assume - at all.
it’s different pre 25, but observe the number of very normal guys with hot girls, and chadguys wothwhat I consider fat girls, we are all on our own scoring system.