Game does not work in 2024 - Game is ruining your chances

[Isildur1]

Are we really taking JA seriously here? Damn the bar has gotten low.

His lay count is a complete lie and is most likely his pictures are with prosis

 

[Zack Freedom]

Yes I completley agree with the OP

It's funny when I jear guys say " maybe I should have said xyz instead or I caught her on a bad day" to justify being rejected.

I think as a guy who got into "game" & cold approach that we did so because we had literally zero reference experience with woman in our teenage years.

So when the buzz of approaching & conversating kicks in we come up with cope to numb the rejection down. As we want to experience chasing that 'high' again.

It's an alright mindset to have as a begginer but once you gain reference experience you need to understand that it is your 'look' that will get you women according to her preferences.

- Your 'Look'
- Being Normal
- arranging dates & not *****footing around

 

[devilkingx2]

the problem with pickup culture and cold approach is in many cases, it overwhelms the girl with your desire for her.

This is probably true, but a lot of men definitely have the problem of not showing enough intent rather than showing too much.

Any guy who has ever been friendzoned is a man who didn't make it clear that he was sexually interested in the girl so she didn't evaluate him on that basis.

Of course if every woman thinks a man is a thirsty fvckboy then he's obviously showing too much intent.

99% of dating coaches are complete sociopathic pathological liars. When you hear a man speaking of a high body count in the 100s, having beautiful women on rotation or Chads sleeping with all the women etc he is playing on your insecurities to make you pay for his product.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I'd also add that a man who successfully sleeps with hundreds of women is probably also a narcissistic sociopath anyway, hundreds or thousands of hookups probably isn't a sign of mental health in men either.

Women will decide within the first 5 seconds of meeting you whether they potentially want to sleep with you.

This is often stated, but if it's true the only thing that matters is looks and the first impression. Maybe money if you're wearing a Gucci suit or driving a BMW when you meet her. Or status if you're the DJ at the club you met her at.

The truth of the dating market is that even famous men go through the same BS.
Women by nature are wired to intensely screen men and gain commitment/power in their interactions with men. I have a friend who is a club promoter in NY and he has first hand seen Justin beiber get rejected by average looking girls and being called a ‘creep’.
Do women have one night stands and hookups? Yes, many of them do. But it’s usually very random, sporadic/unplanned and often done when they are on holiday eg spring break or a random night out after a break up. therefore, you cannot teach someone how to control or obtain this outcome beyond being good looking, going out loads, talking to loads of women, swiping on lots of women and hoping to get lucky.

I agree with this part 100% I don't even have that much to comment, I just like this part. Well done.

Well, that’s the reality of ‘getting consistent hook ups’. It is actually much more appealing and logical for men to find one reliable partner - a beautiful woman to give you sex consistently and with emotion, than to bang a bunch of random 6’s for 10x the effort, 10x the rejections, worse quality sex and at the opportunity cost of being a man that’s attractive to the top tier women (200 nights outs to get 4 hooks up with 6’s…could instead have been spent at the library working on your business or local sports team and led to meeting a 9)

This is completely 110% true. It's way more work to try and hookup with randoms while staying single, than to stay with one good loyal woman.

The problem is that it's often easier to find random hoes to mess around with than one good woman to be your serious girlfriend.

This dilemma is why they invented having a rotation of plates as the middle ground between night game every weekend and trying to find a unicorn for an LTR.

top tier women have boyfriends. Chateau heartiste was the only PUA honest and open about this. Girls that are 8’s 9’s and 10’s (yes, 10’s do exist!) are ABLE to secure commitment from alpha males - they are ABLE to get the full package, so your little gimmicks and games in the hopes to secure a quick lay are futile. These women see casual sex as detrimental to their SMV and social standing, and would not find it appealing when they can easily secure sex with the top men AND get commitment/respect. To get these women you need to build rapport, build trust, have great conversation and a lot going for you. It relies 100% on genuine attraction and genuine compatibility which cannot be bought or taught (flexing money etc will not work either).

I agree that high quality women will most likely be in long term stable relationships they're very loyal to.

I don't know if I want to agree with the rest of that. Feels like putting unicorns on a pedestal to me. Beautiful women that are too morally pure for hookups and cannot be attained by lesser men.

Attractive men screen women. Ie - ‘game’ tactics and PUA coaches often exclusively attract women with personality disorders - specifically sociopathic or narcissistic/BPD women. Most of the techniques taught - such as withholding validation, negging, ‘raising attraction’ are all geared towards women with personality disorders.
In reality, they should be teaching you how to screen for and attract healthy women, with healthy attachment styles. Do you want to seduce the village dumpster or do you want to spend your time with someone you can feel proud about and that feels proud about you? Being with girls with personality disorders will destroy you in the long run (look at will smith, jonny depp etc) and completely skew your sense of self worth. Healthy women care more about genuine connection, trust, good conversation, rapport/sharing empathy, rather than your ‘spikes’ and attempts at ‘escalation’ which are seen as odd, try hard and manipulative.

This is an interesting point and reminds me of Wheat Waffles' Blackpill video on selection bias.

Game and most other tactics are most likely to work on crazy girls and slvts. (LMS is most likely to work on crazy girls and slvts too.)

It just makes sense, what kind of woman is most likely to date a guy just because he's good looking or wealthy or uses PUA tactics? A girl who bangs dudes for shallow reasons (hoe) and/or a girl who is easily manipulated and ruled by impulses and emotions (crazy)

Of course the problem is that most girls who are neither crazy nor hoes would be much harder to attract or sleep with and much more likely to be in a stable loyal relationship.

Guys that are genuinely attractive will not interact with 1000 girls hoping to get a 1 or 2 notches (desperation). Instead they will talk to a few women with zero intent/motivation. just making good conversation, and allow the woman to win him over/prove herself a good catch, with her femininity and how she makes him feel about himself.


Attractive alpha males go for women that appreciate and respect their simple conversation and time (because that’s the level of respect they are used to), not for women that are making it hard and forcing them to play games for their bare minimum

The first half of this part is stupid. Guys who are so hot that they don't have to do anything and the women will pursue don't need any advice. Nobody does 1000 approaches because they want to either. You do the amount you need to do.

The second half is 100% facts. You have to be a self respecting man who doesn't waste time with women who aren't genuinely interested.

 

[TheGambino]

@SmoothSmooth

[/QUOTE]

this is the most quality post I ever ever read.

 

[Solomon]

Are we really taking JA seriously here? Damn the bar has gotten low.

The RP has turned into a haven for incels, people use to post field reports and how to improve now it's videos worshipping a tranny-smasher smh no wonder Pook left

 

[RickJames]

I think when it comes to sex only, archetypes are BS. Yes, women will sleep with men outside their archetype to fool around or maybe they got tricked by the guy. As a black guy, I have been able to sleep with white women in the cleat/status chaser archetype, only dates white men archetype, and even lesbian archetype lol. However, it has never amounted to anything past a one-night stand or a difficult relationship where she is constantly in her bvtchy feminine mode because you are not the guy she wanted at the end of the day. Afterwards, you see her in a relationship with the archetype guy she wanted or permanently single because she could not obtain this guy. If you are looking for sex alone then yes archetypes are complete BS I agree. However, if you are looking for something more than sex then you will have to take archetypes in to full account.

Exactly. A ONS is about what D1ck is available in that given night, within close proximity and is the most obviously highest value based what she can see then and there. So any good enough looking guy can potentially smash if she is adamant on having sex that particular moment.

beyond that, being her archetype is 95% of the battle. Most women lust after the same type of dude over and over. Girls create their entire personalities around being appeasing to the archetype of man they want to date.

Umm, no, people generally like what's familiar. Familiar stimuli are more “perceptually fluent,” or easier to process, than new ones. Unconsciously, we give preference to things and people we’re familiar with. Psychologists have even found that the more often you see someone, the more likely you are to develop a romantic attraction to them. Even if the stimuli you’re being repeatedly exposed to is negative (e.g. an abusive relationship), you will subconsciously find comfort in the familiarity of it.

From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that familiarity leads to comfort. Something you’re familiar with is less likely to hurt you. Or, at least, hurt you in an unexpected way. We don’t want to risk the unfamiliar.

Psychologists have found that happiness is directly correlated to how many things (e.g. types of music, types of food, activities, countries) we’re familiar with.

Cognitive fluency is a measure of how easy it is to think about something. It shapes what we believe, how we invest, and who and what we think is beautiful.

Our brains are lazy. The easier something is to understand, the more likely we are to believe it. According to psychologists, any situation where we are required to weigh information (e.g. voting, buying, marriage) is influenced by cognitive fluency.

If the name of your company is easy to pronounce, shares are likely to perform better.

If you write in a clean, clear font, people are more likely to believe you’re stating a fact.

In North America, if your name is John, people will be more trusting of you than if your name were Zesiro.

Our brains love prototypes. Once we have an idea of what something should be, we want other similar things to share the same qualities.

For example, we all know the prototype of a car. Now imagine Ford comes out with a car that has two wheels in the back and only one in the front. I’m willing to bet it wouldn’t sell well. Why? Because it has low prototypicality and that makes our brains uncomfortable.

What about an oval fridge? Or a five foot tall microwave? Or a website with no pictures?

Takeaway: If we aren’t familiar with something first-hand, we want it to be similar to something we

In the present era, individuals have the ability to acquaint themselves with various distinct archetypes. If you find yourself attracting girls that have a certain preference, it is indicative of someone lacking intelligence and should be avoided.

There is a much better post about this at http://rooshvforum.org/showthread.php?tid=28&action=lastpost

 

[eli77]

I've always said the best thing a 40-year-old guy who has been a member of this forum for a number of years. Can give to a young version of themselves is a copy of anything by neil strauss. I've always thought mystery was overrated versus neil and russ jeffries.

 

[Isildur1]

I've always said the best thing a 40-year-old guy who has been a member of this forum for a number of years. Can give to a young version of themselves is a copy of anything by neil strauss. I've always thought mystery was overrated versus neil and russ jeffries.

I just don’t understand how most men can be attractive to Ross Jeffries he’s an old dude with a beer belly? The majority of women won’t be excited by fornicating with that

 

[Isildur1]

I think his height makes him at least a 6.

There were rumours made by Anthony Johnson that her girlfriend had a baby by seserian and that John Anthony could have been paying for her and said child - is that a scar on her belly?

 

[Solomon]

There were rumours made by Anthony Johnson that her girlfriend had a baby by seserian and that John Anthony could have been paying for her and said child - is that a scar on her belly?

The guy admitted to smashing trannies, why would anyone still isten to him? plus he's got a checkered past with various scandals including ALLEGEDLY (this was alleged by a youtuber not me)faking std results to smash seeking arrangements chicks, the video mysteriously dissipated when he threatened to sue the person who uploaded it

 

[eli77]

I just don’t understand how most men can be attractive to Ross Jeffries he’s an old dude with a beer belly? The majority of women won’t be excited by fornicating with that

You just said it the majority not all everyone of those pick-up girls have some kind of money issues to some extent no one's perfect.

 

[BoostedArrow]

The guy admitted to smashing trannies, why would anyone still isten to him? plus he's got a checkered past with various scandals including ALLEGEDLY (this was alleged by a youtuber not me)faking std results to smash seeking arrangements chicks, the video mysteriously dissipated when he threatened to sue the person who uploaded it

JAL has been dumped by anyone who ever worked with him. Big names like Rollo Tomassi, Rich Cooper, Rian Stone and many more. Anyone referencing this clown here should be banned imo. Debating Rollos credibility is one thing but even allowing sb the like of JAL is just fckin retarded.

 

[SmoothSmooth]

To further my point about hookups = getting lucky rather than game

the same girl you hooked up with on night x, would reject you on night y. Or if you approached 30 mins earlier on that night would have been to sober or busy chatting to her friends.

hookups say more about the quality of the woman, her personal needs in that moment and your looks than anything to do with game.

they cannot be controlled, and anyone teaching you that they can is scamming you for $$$.

getting hook ups is just a matter of being very social (going out often, knowing lots of people, travelling alot/going to group events), talking to lots of women without intent (‘vibing’), being very well dressed/good looking/tall and not being selective. Often the woman will give off very obvious signs that she wants to go home with the guy (there’s no ‘gaming’ or convincing involved). It’s not impressive and the juice is rarely worth the squeeze because you’ll usually be sleeping with a girl that everyone else has been with.

 

[oc16]

Yes, I agree that leagues do exist and most couples should be relatively close in physical attractiveness.

I.E, I consider myself a 7 or 7.5.......attractive, but NOT strikingly handsome. Think Steve Carrell, Mr. Big from Sex and the City or disgraced journalist Matt Lauer. All of these men look good, but they are not strikingly handsome like a Henry Cavill, Brad Pitt or Adam Levine from Maroon 5.

There is a female I work with who is absolutely stunning, probably one of the hottest women in the whole county! She is the type of woman you would see on the arms of a good-looking pro athlete. Is she out of my league? Yes, she is! She is probalby out the league of 95% of men. I would not feel secure dating a woman like that since she is noticeably more attractive than me.

I feel more connected to the cute girl next door types (6.5 to 7.5)[/QUOTE]

 

[pipeman84]

Yes, I agree that leagues do exist and most couples should be relatively close in physical attractiveness.

I.E, I consider myself a 7 or 7.5.......attractive, but NOT strikingly handsome. Think Steve Carrell, Mr. Big from Sex and the City or disgraced journalist Matt Lauer. All of these men look good, but they are not strikingly handsome like a Henry Cavill, Brad Pitt or Adam Levine from Maroon 5.

There is a female I work with who is absolutely stunning, probably one of the hottest women in the whole county! She is the type of woman you would see on the arms of a good-looking pro athlete. Is she out of my league? Yes, she is! She is probalby out the league of 95% of men. I would not feel secure dating a woman like that since she is noticeably more attractive than me.

I feel more connected to the cute girl next door types (6.5 to 7.5)

[/QUOTE]
That's a self defeating mindset. First off, it doesn't take much for a woman to be hot. Just not be obese, let hair grow long, nice clothes, a bit of makeup. Done. The fact she's not married and I presume she's above 22yrs old means that beside hotness she probably doesn't have much to offer. That thought alone should help you get her off the pedestal.

Secondly, men that are considered attractive come in very different types (think Jason Statham/Chris Hemsworth) and each woman has her own preference, giving yourself a note and comparing yourself with Brad Pitt (by the way, what good was his striking handsomeness if he got married to a crazy, twice divorcee like Angelina Jolie ) is ridiculous and pointless.

 

[EyeBRollin]

This is a solid af OP. I have nothing to add. Well done!

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Forget game, I'm gonna spit the truth...
I won't stop until I get 'em in their birthday suit....