Anyone else have a feeling that aproaching is like...

[AckeDman]

Anyone else other then me have this feeling that aproaching is basically just the same as if someone were to give u 1000 $ that you could only spend on lotter/betting and the potential winnings from that u are allowed to do what u wish with?

The metaphor works pretty good.

the money would be the time spent on approaching. The DJ skills and other factors like looks,money etc. would be the odds. And the girl would be the actual bet.

The type of bet would be the type of girl. For example roulette would be a superhot girl while blackjack would be decent or semi-ugly girl.

Thats the mentality im trying to develop. Basically seeing approaching as betting with someone elses money. You will either spend alot of money(time) on 1 bet(girl) or spread around the money on diffrent bets(basically do fast cold aproaches to save time.).

Anyone else other then me see this?

 

[sexxyback]

I don't think that is the best metaphor.

I think Mystery's metaphor of the game being a video game with no save button is the best.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Yo Ack,


I see what you're saying. The only thing I would add is that if you had an UNLIMITED (pardon the pun) amount of money, you wouldn't place ANY significant value judgement on the time spent doing RECON to find more women.

If you could take ALL emotional investment out of approaching women, you'd be bulletproof to all the different weapons of mass rejection that they would try to use on you in this Battle of the Sexes.

That way, anxiety over the outcome of "engaging" a new target would never cause you to LOSE THE FIGHT.

 

[AckeDman]

No u see... if u make a bet with the 1000$ u would get lets say every week and u strike out, then u would still feel the emotional investment gone bad since u would feel u spent the money on the wrong bet.

Also like when u bet on sports or just casino gambling or poker there is always a chance someone somewhere in the chain is cheating or affecting the odds. This could in real life be the girls friend that later in privat flatout says she hates u or spreads a false lie about u or other factors u didnt know about when approaching the girl.

Im just saying... so far i havent seen anything about this metaphor that is kinda off.

 

[Super_geek]

Anyone else other then me have this feeling that aproaching is basically just the same as if someone were to give u 1000 $ that you could only spend on lotter/betting and the potential winnings from that u are allowed to do what u wish with?

The metaphor works pretty good.

the money would be the time spent on approaching. The DJ skills and other factors like looks,money etc. would be the odds. And the girl would be the actual bet.

The type of bet would be the type of girl. For example roulette would be a superhot girl while blackjack would be decent or semi-ugly girl.

Thats the mentality im trying to develop. Basically seeing approaching as betting with someone elses money. You will either spend alot of money(time) on 1 bet(girl) or spread around the money on diffrent bets(basically do fast cold aproaches to save time.).

Anyone else other then me see this?

I kind of see it, an interesting analagy. Although I think "analagy" might be a better word than "metaphor" to describe this.

Okay, so the money=time, and so when you win, your reward=what? I guess the reward would be the date with her.

So the goal would be to maximize the number of dates you get, just as someone gambling wants to maximize their monetary returns from their bets.

So in order for this to work, you would need to put the value of time and the value of a date into perspective. How much time is one date worth?

For example, You could choose to approach girl g, with a .25 probability of winning a date, and a .75 probability of losing and getting rejected and wasting the time you spent on her. So 2 outcomes would happen, either you win a date, or totally waste your time. So how much time should you invest knowing these probabilities so that your decision isnt a bad one? To answer this question, youll need to know how much time 1 date is worth. Lets say 1 date is worth 10 minutes.

The following equation would tell you the value of approaching girl g given the amount of time spent on her and the probabilities of the win/lose outcomes:

Equation 1:
Value of approach(b)=2.5-.75*b
s.t.
0 <= b < POSITIVE INFINITY



where b=the amount of time spent on the girl. The value is measured in units of time. So basically, spending 10 minutes girl g would be worth -5 minutes, which equates to half a negative date. This means that on average, for every girl you approach youll win some dates(worth 10 min each) and sometimes waste time when you get rejected. It will average out that you lose 5 minutes per approach. So this is a bad investment. but investing say 1 minute on girl g would be worth +1.25 minutes or positive 175 thousandths of a date. So it would be a good idea to spend 1 minute on every girl type g that you see.

To really maximize your return, youd want to spend as little time as possible per girl according to the math so far. You would do best spending 0 minutes per girl according to the math. But the math is really unrealistic, becuase your odds of winning actually change with the amount of time spent per girl. Obviously your chances of getting a date are going to be less if you spent literally 1 second on a girl than if you spent 1 minute on the same girl. In 1 second, thats barely enough time to ask her for her phone number!

So equation 1 is actually not realistic in predicting the "win a date value" given the time invested and the odds of winning. To be realistic, it would need to take into account that the odds of winning actually change as you change the amount of time to spend on the girl.

But I like your idea, it is an interesting analagy.

 

[persiangino]

Yo Ack,


I see what you're saying. The only thing I would add is that if you had an UNLIMITED (pardon the pun) amount of money, you wouldn't place ANY significant value judgement on the time spent doing RECON to find more women.

If you could take ALL emotional investment out of approaching women, you'd be bulletproof to all the different weapons of mass rejection that they would try to use on you in this Battle of the Sexes.

That way, anxiety over the outcome of "engaging" a new target would never cause you to LOSE THE FIGHT.

Yea this pretty much says everything

 

[Charm]

Equation 1:
Value of approach(b)=2.5-.75*b
s.t.
0 <= b < POSITIVE INFINITY

I think we can all see why you're here now :nono: :nono: :moon:

 

[The Juan and only]

I think we can all see why you're here now :nono: :nono: :moon:

I'm hoping it was intended as a joke, or even as a subtle lesson to us all; showcasing the effect of an over-analytical and yet narrow-minded approach to the art of seduction. Implying through example that we should never try to characterise the dating scene with such models.

But I doubt it. This forum has gone to hell anyway, so meh.

 

[Super_geek]

I'm hoping it was intended as a joke, or even as a subtle lesson to us all; showcasing the effect of an over-analytical and yet narrow-minded approach to the art of seduction. Implying through example that we should never try to characterise the dating scene with such models.

But I doubt it. This forum has gone to hell anyway, so meh.

Actually, my post was a serious post. And I was not at all implying that being overanalytical or applying mathematical models to dating is a bad idea. In fact, if anything, I would be implying the opposite. I strongly advocate being overanalytical and applying mathematical models to dating.

What I was really saying at the end of my post was simply that equation 1 is not realistic enough to model reality. Equation 1 perfectly models the original poster's analagy mathematically. So I pointed out that equation wasnt realistic enough and so therefore the original poster's analagy wasnt realistic enough. However, it isnt a bad analagy at all, there are some aspects of realism to it.

I also stated that an equation where the odds change as the time you invest changes would be a more realistic equation, and would model reality pretty well, and would actually give some useful predictions. Such an equation would be nonlinear and a little bit more complicated than equation 1, which was a linear equation. The odds remained constant in equation 1 and did not change as the time invested changes. The odds should be changing as time invested changes.

 

[mrRuckus]

I think you'd do better with girls if you didn't view them as an equation to plug values into.