What I believe to be, by far, the hardest thing about cold approaches

[We_ArE_VeNOM]

You had mentioned the bank robbery method as part of your approaching style in the past. I think you had mainly been discussing it in relation to non-bar approaching (daygame).

Exactly.

There have been other frameworks presented for daygame approaching. In "Day Bang", Roosh had his GALNUC conversational. Guys like Nick Krauser and Tom Torero have presented the London Daygame Method (Open Vibe Stack Invest Close). The London Daygame Model had been intended as a conversational model in adapting Mystery Method to a non-bar setting, but it was mainly tested in street approaching in London.

I think the London Daygame Model, GALNUC, and your bank robbery method all have the same objective in non-bar approaching. The idea is to have a short interaction, present yourself well, arrange a date, and leave in the shortest amount of time possible.

Exactly.

A good non-bar approach can accomplish in about a 5 minute interaction. The only thing that the initial conversation should demonstrate is a decent likelihood of a good extended interaction in the future. The first daygame interaction should somewhat prove that a 1-3 hour interaction for drinks at a bar would go reasonably well.

I wouldn't even give it 5 minutes, unless the woman is the one who is extending the exchange.

I wish that I could open a female in daygame immediately with the request to go have a drink at a bar with me. However, I think there's a need to have some more interaction (likely beyond 30-60 seconds) in order to arrange a future social event.

30-60 seconds is cool.

But I operate on the premise of "If she can't see the G in me when I first step to her, then no additional time will save me".

The "G" in me is my confidence, boldness, along with my phisique...which all oozes masculinity and sexuality.

This should be noticed IMMEDIATELY by the woman...just like if I see a woman with big azz titties, I'll know if I want her IMMEDIATELY.

When I see a woman that I find sexually attractive, she don't have to say shiit, or engage in a 5 minute conversation with me in order for me to want to get at her.

If she is attractive to me, no lengthy exchange is needed...because the job is already done. I'm attracted to her. I'm already sold.

It works the same with women on the flip side.

No trivial azz conversations about the weather or her favorite colors are required.

You guys have been programmed to think that you have to do more, when in actuality, you don't.

If you hit the gym, and build muscle..you've done all you need to do.

That's a legitimate topic to discuss. It is challenging to get a random woman who is a stranger to hold a 3-5 minute conversation to assess compatibility and arrange a future social event with her.

Most stranger interactions die within 60 seconds.

Um, that is the point, amigo.

3-5 minutes conversations are irrelevant to the task at hand...so you are creating an unnecessary challenge for yourself and her.

I'll say 30 seconds, tops.

If you hit the gym and lift heavy..a woman will be sold on you in 30 seconds or less.

 

[characternote]

This should be noticed IMMEDIATELY by the woman...just like if I see a woman with big azz titties, I'll know if I want her IMMEDIATELY.

When I see a woman that I find sexually attractive, she don't have to say shiit, or engage in a 5 minute conversation with me in order for me to want to get at her.


It works the same with women on the flip side.

This goes against the very premise of 'game', especially traditionally. Like, you'd be banned from PUA forums in the old days for saying that and called a 'game denier'.

However, I pretty much agree with you. Which Is why I don't really have an issue with super direct game. The arguments amongst the community about openers etc all tend to come from a different belief in terms of the 'power' of games/verbals/PUA tips and tricks etc although they usually don't even realise it and think they're arguing about something else lol

 

[We_ArE_VeNOM]

This thread was sharing advice on how to do better with cold approaches.

Oh, is that what you call it?

It was meant for people that take action, not to be hijacked by corny keyboard warriors that think they invented some kind of "bank robbery" approach. So weird man.

I can assure you, robbing a bank is definitely taking action .

And to be honest, the bank robbery method is not something I invented...

I once heard Marquette Burton (The Saint and the Sinner) use it in an off the cuff way as he described his approaches.

It resonated with me, so I ran with it.

It's no longer a productive discussion but I will say that I wonder what your real life conversation looks like. Hilarious

My real life conversations looks like the standard of what all real life conversations should look like.

 

[We_ArE_VeNOM]

This goes against the very premise of 'game', especially traditionally.

And what is the definition of 'game'?

Like, you'd be banned from PUA forums in the old days for saying that and called a 'game denier'.

Indirect game denier*

However, I pretty much agree with you. Which Is why I don't really have an issue with super direct game. The arguments amongst the community about openers etc all tend to come from a different belief in terms of the 'power' of games/verbals/PUA tips and tricks etc although they usually don't even realise it and think they're arguing about something else lol

Funny.

And to add more salt to it, from time to time, a lot of discussion has been made of IOI's, right?

And what is IOI?

It is when a woman gives you an indicator of interest (aka, choosing signal), which she usually gives without you saying a word to her!!

Thus, to my point that...what you say has very little to do with her initial attraction towards you, and her initial attraction towards you is ALL THAT MATTERS on a cold approach.

So standing there and doing magical tricks is a waste of time on a woman that is already sold on you (or not sold).

All you need to do is go in, and close the deal.

 

[characternote]

And what is the definition of 'game'?

'Applied charisma' with verbally PERSUASIVE and sedictive skills.

If you look at PUA forums from basically pre-smartphone, 'game' was kind of defined as the ability to MAKE a girl attracted to you! Through the use of various 'attraction material' which basically makes up all of what was taught in pickup books (say, dhvs, cold reads, teasing, pushpulls, negs, disqualification, qualification etc etc). The idea as that you could be a 4ft, 42 year old fat guy and IF that stunning 18 year old at the bar rejected you, you can NOT use your age or height as an excuse. It was just that your 'game' wasn't good enough

Indirect game denier*

yep. I see what you're saying. But don't forget that direct game wouldn't even be considered 'game' among the PUA purists back in the day. That would have been called 'fools mate'. (e.g - Approach a girl, be direct, if she thinks you're hot it'll probably work. If she doesn't, it won't)

And That's why they taught 'game' (as described before) - so that the girls who didn't think you're hot would still end up in your bed. i.e it didn't just 'work' on girls who thought you were hot. It was irrelevant

As I say, it's a load of nonsense and PUA marketing, and has never held up through testing at ALL in my experience, but that indeed was teh idea!!

But as I say. I agree with you. And I have done my fair share of direct approaches. I personally tend to split my approach style about 50/50, but that's just for personal reasons. I certainly believe that he decision is basically made up before you finish your opener and i've never see the best PUA's in the world turn a clear 'no' into a 'yes' and so for that reason I certainly understand the appeal!!

 

[We_ArE_VeNOM]

'Applied charisma' with verbally PERSUASIVE and sedictive skills.

I get it.

But there is more than one way to skin a cat.

While I acknowledge and respect guys who have the persuasive, seductive verbal skills to go that route, I choose to go a different path.

My emphasis is on bodygame.

I want women to be less attracted to what I say, and more attracted to how I look.

It is just more satisfying, in my opinion.

If you look at PUA forums from basically pre-smartphone, 'game' was kind of defined as the ability to MAKE a girl attracted to you! Through the use of various 'attraction material' which basically makes up all of what was taught in pickup books (say, dhvs, cold reads, teasing, pushpulls, negs, disqualification, qualification etc etc). The idea as that you could be a 4ft, 42 year old fat guy and IF that stunning 18 year old at the bar rejected you, you can NOT use your age or height as an excuse. It was just that your 'game' wasn't good enough

I feel it.

yep. I see what you're saying. But don't forget that direct game wouldn't even be considered 'game' among the PUA purists back in the day. That would have been called 'fools mate'. (e.g - Approach a girl, be direct, if she thinks you're hot it'll probably work. If she doesn't, it won't)

And That's why they taught 'game' (as described before) - so that the girls who didn't think you're hot would still end up in your bed. i.e it didn't just 'work' on girls who thought you were hot. It was irrelevant

Not my thang.

I don't know, man...I just want women to be attracted to me before I open my mouth and say anything to her .

But, I respect the hell out of the verbal seduction approach, though.

As I say, it's a load of nonsense and PUA marketing, and has never held up through testing at ALL in my experience, but that indeed was teh idea!!

But as I say. I agree with you. And I have done my fair share of direct approaches. I personally tend to split my approach style about 50/50, but that's just for personal reasons. I certainly believe that he decision is basically made up before you finish your opener and i've never see the best PUA's in the world turn a clear 'no' into a 'yes' and so for that reason I certainly understand the appeal!!

Well, if the decision is made after the opener..

Thus, my point.

 

[characternote]

I don't know, man...I just want women to be attracted to me before I open my mouth and say anything to her .

I understand that, tbh. That raw attraction is hot lol

While I acknowledge and respect guys who have the persuasive, seductive verbal skills to go that route

Well the thing is, I don't think that even exists. Certainly not to the extent that it's marketed. Not even CLOSE, in fact! As i say, even those that teach this 'ability' can't seem to pull it off!! (a careful study of infields seems to confirm this)
And I don't even think that's a contentious opinion. Certainly not on THIS sub! I mean, if someone mentions they're struggling to get laid or asks how to bang the hot teenage girl who just moved in to the apartment near them on this sub, the advice is ALWAYS basically 'hit the gym, make more money'. The advice is never ever, 'go up to her and say the following opener. Then when she replies use a dhv story such as xyz. Then be sure to neg her and disqualify her'' etc etc etc! lol

 

[We_ArE_VeNOM]

I understand that, tbh. That raw attraction is hot lol

Exactly .

Well the thing is, I don't think that even exists. Certainly not to the extent that it's marketed. Not even CLOSE, in fact! As i say, even those that teach this 'ability' can't seem to pull it off!! (a careful study of infields seems to confirm this)

I actually agree with you.

Alan Roger Currie, who is called "The Godfather of Verbal Seduction", that was the focal point of his game and coaching curriculum.

He taught guys (his paid coaching) how to be master verbal seducers...and he has shared many of his personal experiences using such on women..and he even stated that some women had actually paid him for phone sex.

There aren't many dating coaches that I'm aware of who emphasizes verbal seduction to such a degree as him...at least certainly not to that extent.

So, while I believe it exists, I don't believe it was ever prevalent in the game as mainstay.

Not even close...and probably never will.

And I don't even think that's a contentious opinion. Certainly not on THIS sub! I mean, if someone mentions they're struggling to get laid or asks how to bang the hot teenage girl who just moved in to the apartment near them on this sub, the advice is ALWAYS basically 'hit the gym, make more money'. The advice is never ever, 'go up to her and say the following opener. Then when she replies use a dhv story such as xyz. Then be sure to neg her and disqualify her'' etc etc etc! lol

As a strong bodygame advocate, that is my advice; hit the gym.

In fact, that is the first step.

The rest will follow.

 

[JacquesMemoirs]

@SW15
Grocery stores used to be great man. You’re right, grocery stores went downhill. It seriously surprises me that single woman have become so standoffish in grocery stores - they’ve eliminated a great venue of places to meet men.

The earbuds/headphone thing has spiraled out of control. They’re only wearing them to make it difficult for guys to say hi. It’s such a shame. You damn well know most of them aren’t listening to anything.

These women will walk across busy roads wearing headphones and they won’t even look both ways or look out for traffic! They just expect the whole world around them would never run over a female. This is out of control.

In a small college town I visited, I’ve even seen rich young women driving cars and they go completely out of their way not to make eye contact with any male drivers. I mean seriously, they will risk their lives and other lives just to avoid making eye contact. So then the town had to install all these speed bumps and special stop signs so the girls could drive without making eye contact with other cars. I’m f ing serious.

 

[SW15]

Grocery stores used to be great man. You’re right, grocery stores went downhill. It seriously surprises me that single woman have become so standoffish in grocery stores - they’ve eliminated a great venue of places to meet men.

The earbuds/headphone thing has spiraled out of control. They’re only wearing them to make it difficult for guys to say hi.

I didn't start grocery store approaching until the early 2010s. I think grocery stores have gone less downhill than gyms since the MP3 player/smartphone era started. Women can be sociable in grocery stores but only because the bar is so low elsewhere. They've used headphones/earbuds to reduce approaches more so elsewhere.

Yes, women are actively discouraging approaches with headphones/earbuds. Most women under 50 right now have immense abundance when single so most aren't worried about discouraging approaches outdoors or in the gym with headphones/earbuds. Most women 18-49 aren't seeking new penis at any given moment, which is the most difficult aspect about non-bar approaching.

Headphones/earbuds are less common in grocery stores.