People from cities awful for game moving to cities good for game.

[Degenerate Haven]

Living in NYC, I have noticed a phenomenon and maybe @In2theGame can kind of chime in on this a bit. I noticed it started to take place around 6 or so years ago when people were hyping Williamsburg up as the hipster haven and also NYC went from mafia infested crimehole to the place to spend your twenties in.

What I noticed was that the kinds of people I ran into when going out changed and in a big way too. I no longer ran into as many European expats or even transplants from more chill places in the US. The amount of people I ran into from San Francisco, LA, and Toronto went up almost ten fold. As anyone will say, these places are awful for game itself.

This leads to a phenomenon we notice with Californians in real life too. They leave California, dump themselves into Colorado and other great states, and eventually infest those states to where those states are culturally unrecognizable from what they used to be.

Similarly, this seems to go for cities awful for game having its populace being dumped into decent cities. I start to notice some trends:

1. Bars and nightclubs get filled to the brim with social media wannabees and much lower quality women.

2. Women become a lot less unapproachable and plus, we all rather approach a Scandinavian 10 than some trashy broad from Toronto but unfortunately, clubs and bars get full of the trashy broads from California and Toronto.

3. More thirsty dudes get pumped into the city which ruins the vibe and makes normally decent women entitled.

4. Slowly, the culture of good cities for game starts to reflect a Toronto or San Fran.

What do you all say?

 

[Epicwinguy]

Denver sucks

 

[Guitar_Whizz]

Personally I don't believe there's such a thing as a 'good city for game' or a 'bad city for game'. If you're not getting results, you need to raise your game and stop blaming the location you live in.

Also, forget about filling your head with thoughts about whether it's a good city for game or on other external factors like 'the dating scene' in that city, or other guys etc. Focus on yourself only and on approaching women you find attractive. Letting in all this external stuff leads to negative and disempowering thoughts, which gets your nowhere.

I'm of the absolute, unshakeable belief I could be successful at dating or hooking up with hot women in any Western city in the world. Game is game, confidence is confidence and women regardless of location respond positively to it.

 

[Jake_Gyllenhaal69]

The fact that I’ve screwed 10 times more women in Texas in less than 6 months vs 4 years in the cesspit of Nashville does make a big point for geography game.

it’s also called geography maxing btw

 

[SW15]

Personally I don't believe there's such a thing as a 'good city for game' or a 'bad city for game'. If you're not getting results, you need to raise your game and stop blaming the location you live in.

I'm of the absolute, unshakeable belief I could be successful at dating or hooking up with hot women in any Western city in the world. Game is game, confidence is confidence and women regardless of location respond positively to it.

I understand the general sentiment of your post. However, I believe that certain factors make it either easier or more difficult to succeed. It's easier to get good results in a city with a less skewed single male-single female ratio. Most U.S. metro areas west of the Mississippi River have worse ratios for men. It is more difficult to succeed in the Western U.S. cities. It's not just ratios. Other cultural influences impact beyond ratios. San Francisco is bad because of the horrid ratios, and the SJW/careerist/feminist influences. I don't think Seattle or Portland have as bad of ratios as San Francisco, but it has the bad cultural elements. Los Angeles, San Diego, and Denver have horrid ratios but less of the SJW/feminist/careerist thing. There are other metro areas in the Western half of the U.S. that are bad but are less talked about because they are not as bad as the areas I've mentioned above or their populations are smaller, making them mid-sized areas.

The numbers are out there and well known now that ratios are better east of the Mississippi River.

Denver sucks

Yes, Denver sucks. There's a reason why Denver is called Menver. Denver has always had bad ratios, even before the early 21st Century when most U.S. metros started getting bad ratios. The mountain lifestyle (winter sports and summer sports) tends to attract more men than women.

The other thing that isn't good about Denver is that the mountain towns are not that close to Denver. All the big mountain resort towns are at least 1.5 hours from Denver and that's if traffic is light to moderate.

Living in NYC, I have noticed a phenomenon and maybe @In2theGame can kind of chime in on this a bit. I noticed it started to take place around 6 or so years ago when people were hyping Williamsburg up as the hipster haven and also NYC went from mafia infested crimehole to the place to spend your twenties in. NYC went from mafia infested crimehole to the place to spend your twenties in.

In the 1970s and 1980s, NYC was gritty and a crimehole. It cleaned up during the 1990s-2000s and that's when it got known to be a place for one's 20s. There were plenty of people in their 20s in NYC in the 1970s-1980s, but the feel was different.

What I noticed was that the kinds of people I ran into when going out changed and in a big way too. I no longer ran into as many European expats or even transplants from more chill places in the US. The amount of people I ran into from San Francisco, LA, and Toronto went up almost ten fold. As anyone will say, these places are awful for game itself.

Which places do you think are more chill in the U.S.? People started reading the ratios were better in NYC than San Fran, LA, and Toronto. San Fran and Toronto are also SJW/feminist/careerist havens, making things even worse.

This leads to a phenomenon we notice with Californians in real life too. They leave California, dump themselves into Colorado and other great states, and eventually infest those states to where those states are culturally unrecognizable from what they used to be.

Yes, Californians have a way of ruining places. Oregon and Washington State were the first places that they got. Denver's ratios were already bad before the Californians coming in droves.

It became evident that the Californians started ruining Arizona in the 1990s, though Arizona has had massive population growth from all parts of the U.S., especially the upper Midwest places like Illinois and Wisconsin. The Scottsdale suburb of Phoenix went from a sleepy old Western vibe town to a try hard, phony, pretentious, high debt place. Metro Phoenix is nothing but a cheap imitation of Los Angeles/Orange County pretentiousness.

Californians made Austin, TX worse too, and their influence is being felt in Texas.

Most of the interior Western states complain about Californians.

1. Bars and nightclubs get filled to the brim with social media wannabees and much lower quality women.

2. Women become a lot less unapproachable and plus, we all rather approach a Scandinavian 10 than some trashy broad from Toronto but unfortunately, clubs and bars get full of the trashy broads from California and Toronto.

3. More thirsty dudes get pumped into the city which ruins the vibe and makes normally decent women entitled.

4. Slowly, the culture of good cities for game starts to reflect a Toronto or San Fran.

All 4 are true.

 

[Guitar_Whizz]

If you feel one city is harder for dating than another and that you're competing against other men in bars and clubs or online dating, why don't you do daygame instead? There's literally NO competition in daygame in any city these days because the current generation of men are too p*ssy and wimpy to do in person daytime approaches, instead relying on apps to meet women. I literally clean up in my city because of this.

Doing daytime direct approach immediately makes you stand out to women and gives you an edge most other men don't have.

I live in the UK and have been successful in different towns and cities I've lived in. I bet you could put me in any of the cities mentioned in this thread that are supposedly 'bad for game', and within a few weeks of daytime approaching I would be getting hooks ups and/or a have steady girlfriend. Most likely the first day I go out I'd get some successes. That's how confident I am in myself and my game.

 

[Degenerate Haven]

If you feel one city is harder for dating than another and that you're competing against other men in bars and clubs or online dating, why don't you do daygame instead? There's literally NO competition in daygame in any city these days because the current generation of men are too p*ssy and wimpy to do in person daytime approaches, instead relying on apps to meet women. I literally clean up in my city because of this.

Doing daytime direct approach immediately makes you stand out to women and gives you an edge most other men don't have.

I live in the UK and have been successful in different towns and cities I've lived in. I bet you could put me in any of the cities mentioned in this thread that are supposedly 'bad for game', and within a few weeks of daytime approaching I would be getting hooks ups and/or a have steady girlfriend. Most likely the first day I go out I'd get some successes. That's how confident I am in myself and my game.

Because some cities in the US are awful for day-game and it is very taboo in some places to talk to women out of the blue. In southern states, you'd quickly end up in some blacklists for being that weirdo creep and have angry men after you. In other places, you'd be that messed up deranged man. Only in some cities is it natural and okay.

FFS, in Toronto they called a city-wide emergency because PUAs were gathering to day-game at a mall.