Sunday, April 1, 2012

Science vs shotgun

Badger shows that it's not simply all about the numbers:
Of my 100 approaches, probably 70 were “closeable” – single women of reasonable age and SMV who I might want to see again. The rest were flirty waitresses, clerks in airports I’d never see again, saleswomen at mall kiosks (got one of them to massage my hands for free), and a demure middle-aged Chinese wife I approached while she was carrying a bottle of Martinelli’s back to her table at a dive bar. Of those 70 approaches, I got seven numbers and a business card, four of which I saw at least once more. 10% close rate, 50% Day-2 rate from closes.
If one considers that markets consider the expected response rate to mass marketing offers to be around 2 percent, Badger's positive response rate of 8 to 11.4 percent, depending upon how you want to regard it, is considerably better than the pure shotgun approach.

It's also useful information for single guys to have. Badger, by his own admission, isn't a master of Game and he comments that he improved considerably after his first 50 approaches. So, around 10 percent is probably a reasonable figure for the neophyte practitioner of Game whereas I would expect a man with very good Game to run between 33 and 50 percent. Of course, this hit percentage also an indicator of socio-sexual rank, as the ALPHAS of the world are often given contact information without requesting it.


Anonymous said...

I have tried to impress this upon my game-less colleagues who insist it doesn't work because they failed the first dozen times, i.e. that even if you have only middling game, after enough approaches you'll net something. Not much different than fishing, really: no fisherman expects to get a hit on every cast.

Basically, the beta is so strong with so many males that it's a frustrating proposition to get them on Team Alpha because they get all sulky when they're turned down and just want to give up which is why, of course, they'll be Beta-4-Life.

Anonymous said...

But what about irrecoverable omegas? Betas could make it work. But irrecoverable omegas, who maybe are screwed by permanent reasons entirely beyond their control (and mental illness and personality disorders count!) cannot make it work no matter what. I think the Game community would help themselves if, instead of saying "Game works no matter what!" and then getting sniped at by haters who then cite irrecoverable omegas, Game advocates wisely countered with "Game works, except for omegas, who need to focus on [something else]."

This would peel away one of the biggest weapons of the haters: pointing to the small group of completely hopeless omegas for whom Game would never work and citing that group as proof that Game doesn't work. The Game community needs to stop getting slammed by the outliers. Vox is the only site run by a non-crazy person who actually recognizes and writes about omegas-who they are, what happens to them, where they go. (Game for Omegas is written by a gamma and DA is no longer writing a blog. The rest, like W&N, are crazy.)

Then the question becomes: what makes for hopeless omegadom?

dice3510 said...

Average guy game, and he got more phone numbers.

Yes, he is good-looking, but game supposedly trumps looks. Roosh claims a 30% number close rate for day game.

ps. I am not a game hater, just very, very skeptical.

dice3510 said...

I note he says he was only approaching "hot" women, meaning his counterparts in the looks department. Roosh, on the other hand, approaches everything in the 5-10 range, and he says that he mostly gets laid with "7s". Although he is average looking, he is tall, which already puts him significantly above average in sexual appeal, solely on the basis of his physical appearance.

dice3510 said...

Furthermore, I note that the Good Looking Loser's number of LAYS is equal to Badger's number of NUMBERS from the 100 approaches.

Suppose Badger got laid from 10% of his phone numbers, which only the top players are capable of. He would have a success rate about 10 times worse than the Good Looking Loser. Good-looking guy running average guy game.

Yohami said...

Omegas hate self improvement in general, not just Game. The core of omeganess is believing you're fucked up beyond repair, while actively hating / pushing out any attempt of "help" that you view as manipulative.

In short omegas can go fuck themselves.

Yohami said...

what makes for hopeless omegadom? rebirth

Trust said...

@Anonymous Apr 1, 2012 12:04 PM
But what about irrecoverable omegas?

I've occasionally said that Game is to the social-sexual market what the triangle offense was to the NBA. It would increase most teams winning percentage, help mediocre teams make the playoffs, and help good teams contend. But if you stink, you stink and a good playbook won't change that.

Thus is the omega. They're the 12th man. They may get off the bench on occassion and might scorea couple times in their career, but what it takes to go pro just isn't in them.

rycamor said...

Yohami, what you describe as omega sounds more like Vox's gamma. It's not so much that omegas hate self-improvement as they are clueless about *what* needs to be improved or how to go about it. Gammas are the ones that rationalize and spit like an angry cat at any suggestion, because they are the most self-deluded, clinging to their fragile egos.

There can actually be some hope for an omega, IF he achieves a level of clue about the world around him. Gammas probably need to fall to omega and realize it before they figure things out.

I had a friend who was a complete omega with women, although functional in every other way--talented artist, directed commercials, composed music scores, and in his spare time worked tirelessly on his movie script. A decent-looking, interesting guy with some oddities but personable enough, but he just had no clue how to talk to a woman. I mean none. Once he was seated at a restaurant next to a girl (who would later become my wife). He said something like "I think I'll have a fajita", only pronouncing it the way you pronounce "vagina", thinking it would sound clever. Of course, she immediately swiveled 45 degrees in her seat and spent the rest of the evening cutting him out of the conversation for the whole table (since he was at the corner).

Once we were going through the checkout line at a store, and I flirted with the cute, bored cashier, something like "I'll have all these, and a smile, too. Hey... now that's better." I didn't realize he was looking at me in awe the whole time, and afterwards said "I don't know how you did that." I who was no player, just a guy who dated a few girls, spent hours trying to school him on the essence of relationships and flirtation. It took at least a couple years before he got a girlfriend at all, but he never balked at my suggestions for improvement.

DaveD said...

So a good looking guy opens every girl he finds attractive, pushes the interaction (ie is "aggressive") and does well and this invalidates Game...even though he's using several facets of Game in everything he does? Really?

I hear good looking guys and naturals say "You don't need Game...that's BS for losers" often. When you look at what they actually do to get women you find...dum dum dum....Game.

With that being said, it IS a numbers game. You can't run the numbers though if you just sit on the bench.


dice3510 said...

No, he's not being "aggressive" in the initial interaction. Read the article.

He's running AVERAGE GUY GAME. He compliments, he makes small talk, and he asks for the number politely.

If this is "Game", then everyone and their mother is inadvertently running "Game".

artie said...

It's automatically Game because of the sheer number of contacts involve. Being indifferent to one particular girls (avoid one-itis) is one core principle of Game. And if you have 100 contacts in a week, 20 follow ups, 10 dates and 5 lays, you simply will not have one-itis...and it reduces the possibilities to fuck it up with one particular girls to a minimum (the less interaction, the less likely to fall back to non-Game behaviour).

That's the reason it's working. And I think that's also the simple most important advice for any man out there: do the 100 approach challenge per week...every week. Practice makes perfect, and rejections becomes standard.

DaveD said...

No, he's not getting those lays because he said they looked nice. He got them by being "aggressive". Also, from start to finish he is leading the interaction. He approaches them, he steers the conversation, he asks for a number.When he calls them back, he's initiating and moving towards a date. When he's with the girl he's not just sitting there sipping coffee; he's touching her, flirting with her and moving her towards the bedroom. This is ALL Game.

I guarantee he's also making strong eye contact, speaking in a firm voice, standing up straight, and doing many of the non-verbal Game things.

And any guy on the upper end of the looks scale can't seriously call himself or what he does "Average Guy".


Yohami said...

rycamor, yeah, I was an omega myself, like your friend sans the success.

But Im responding to this nonsense:

"what makes for hopeless omegadom?"

or, rephrased: what can help you when you're helplessness?

or, which medicine can cure you from an incurable, terminal sickness?

The premise defeats the question. You might attempt to answer the it, but the premise will negate your answer. It's a defensive mechanism and it's probably listed as a fallacy, it's a false question.

So in order to give the omega a proper treatment, the premise has to change. The omega cant be "hopeless" anymore. And in the process, the omega identification itself will die. So you will see all sort of defense mechanisms when dealing with that.

In short is not a question looking for answers - it's a defensive mechanism. And I've been around it for long enough to know there's no fix for it other than to completely abandon that state of mind, and be open to change.

But usually a lot of pain is needed, and complete failure is needed, before the mind surrenders the deep core defense mechanisms. There are other ways for sure, but no when the mind doesnt "want" these other ways.

So as long as the situation is painted as "hopeless" omegas can go fuck themselves. Suffer bro. Die. And get born again.

I´ll be here when you do.

Yohami said...


rycamor said...

I suspect there is language barrier misunderstanding here. "What makes for" is an expression in English that is not the same as "what can be done for". Anonymous above was not asking how to help a helpless omega but what are the attributes OF a helpless omega, You did answer that question, though.

Yohami said...


dice3510 said...

Yes, he was being aggressive on DATES. But dates happened because the girls were already interested in him, and what he did was nothing more than "talk to them like a fucking human being" as that guy in the comic book said.

Speaking with a firm voice and standing straight is not "game", it is called "not being a dork" (hint: most guys are not).

No, he's not an average guy, no one said that. But his "game" was average. He did not neg, tease, DHV, do compliance tests, have clever openers, kino escalation, complicated routines, NLP techniques, whatever. He talked to them like any normal guy would.

And he does better than guys with tight "game", even though game guys claim that "game" trumps physical appearance.

Just going out and talking to girls is "game"? Ugh, whatever. You're being too liberal with the definition of game. I am talking about mainstream, Mystery/Style/Roissy/VD/asshole game.

dice3510 said...

I agree that "game", skill, to some extent, plays a role. But many claims propagated by mainstream game guys are very fishy, to say the least. Good Looking Loser, Aaron Sleazy, and company, advocate going out and talking to a large number of girls to build skill, but they are huge opponents of the pickup artist industry.

Good Looking Loser said...

Hey what's up guys- Chris from here. Just wanted to clear up some stuff on my little study.

don't make too much of the numbers, especially the # of the times I got laid (7/100, a lot, more than usual). This high number is because of 3 things- get were physically attracted to me, my screening text 'hey sexy bitch' and aggressiveness/get laid blue print on dates (that most won't have). Even still I ended up on 6-7 dates where the girl wasn't going let me do anything more than kiss her.

The study was to prove that nearly any guy could get at at least 1 date (or phone number). So the average guy could have at least 1 date every 4 days if he wanted and there's no reason for sex-less/date-less streaks of 6 months. If I could get 47 phone numbers, 7 girls in bed, you'll just have to assume that another guy could get at least 1 phone number.

The 'in-field' stats are representative of the average guy, running 'average guy' game (compliment, small talk, number).

A key part of that is 'number', the key is getting numbers is asking for them. One of two things will happen- you'll get it or you won't. A fair amount of times a girl will give her number and will not actually be sexually available. So 40%-50% of the time you'll get the number, and assume half of those chicks you probably won't see again, of the remaining 50%- 25% will be interested in you (and sexually available) and the other 25% will be 'maybe' interested in you (ans sexually available), either way these girls want to MEET UP. These are very rough percentages. Guys that aren't getting phone numbers, aren't asking for them and need to so they can see that 'simply asking' works.

That's probably the 1 thing that Mainstream/rip off Pickup Artists/Dating Coach know that the average guy doesn't. They can get phone numbers but simply being polite/funny and the girl feels bad if she says "NO PHONE NUMBER"... so she gives him the number and the students say "WOW!!! He's gonna get laid! that's my hero!"... that is social pressure not attraction.Seen it 100x times. By the way- don't start a pickup artist company and do this, word is getting out. haha

Good Looking Loser said...

There's been some discussion about looks vs. game vs. other stuff and you guys have made me think about it. What trumps all is having BALLS. That's mandatory. that will get Mr. average guy laid 20x more than Mr. good looking guy or Mr. game man.

After that, assume average BALL-size, approach the same amount of girls there's largely two answers-
Mr. Good Looking Guy = Quality of girls
Mr. Game Guy = Quantity of girls

Mr. Good Looking Guy attracts the high quality girls naturally, he doesn't know what he's doing that much, but the girls who are attracted if give him A LOT of chances to capitalize since they like him and perceive him as an alpha male since he is good looking. He'll get some of the girls. But he'll lose some of the girls from non-action and simply not knowing how to do it. Mr. Good Looking Guy will find himself on a lot of dates that don't end in sex because he's not aggressive.

Mr. Game Guy attracts a lesser quality of girl naturally, but he knows what he's doing. He doesn't just know the theory, he can execute it fairly well. LEGIT GAME, not community dork (no game, no balls, no looks, no nothing). Simply because he knows what he's doing, he'll bag more girls. Even though he'll lose the girls that aren't attracted to him in the first place, he'll make up for it (in terms of quantity) simply because he's better at the END stages.

I used the hypothetical 100- in reality however, Mr. Game Guy talks to MORE chicks than Mr. Good Looking Guy, because he understands that he HAS to.. so he does and gets laid more. Mr. LEGIT Game Guy naturally has more confidence/balls (most important) thing, so he'll get laid more.

remember Mr. Game Guy is average looking, with LEGIT game that can score him average girls and the OCCASIONAL hottie. Mr. Game Guy is NOT a 99% of the pickup community, he isn't even 80% of the instructors/gurus.

there's a lot more to this maybe I'll write about it later-
but basically,
looks = quality
game = quantity

the reason for this is- mr. game naturally has more balls and knows what he's doing. still, it's way harder to do on the hottest chicks that aren't sexually available to him. but gets more pussy though.

Yeah, game, as a community (and my definition) is more than 'just talking' to girl... however, for the average guy, it's not. They probably consider game something like 'talking' that reflects confidence or "makes the girl like me"- and to an extent it is.

aight, thanks for your time!!! just my opinion
screen that PuSSY

jlw said...

Hey there, late to this party:

"Irrecoverable omegas" (as the OP put it) do exist. Yohami, with all due respect, is wrong.

Our gracious host VD, from whom the Game pantheon take its advanced ranking vernacular, defined omegas thusly in two places:

"The losers...Hopeless...The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable."

VD was once again correct. Hopeless...*truly* unfortunate...losers...these words apply to a small number of men. (And women, but that's not our focus.) The fact is that these guys cannot get anybody...EVER...if they have any sort of standards. A fat cowbeast? Sure, they could maybe get that...but why not just rub it out to porn until middle age takes the interest away?

Remember VD's advice to hopeless omegas: "what irrecoverable omegas should do to wring the best out of life is to remind themselves that relationships with women are but a small portion of life itself."

See? VD recognized the existance of "hopeless omegas" and was kind enough to give them some advice - do something else that you CAN succeed at. So has Roissy. So have a lot of others. Just look around. There are more men at the bottom (and top) of the bell curve then women. It's just the truth.

Yohami said...

JWL, can you show me some truly unfortunate omegas? guys who're not mentally ill nor seriously cripped - guys who are smart enough to read white nerdy virgin and grasp the idea of game - for whose it wouldnt work.

Yohami said...

*crippled. damn my english.

rycamor said...

Vox posted on this here and I provided what I believe to be a contributing factor here.

It's hard to saw what can make a truly hopeless omega, beyond actual physical impairment or psychological disorder. In fact, women can overlook an amazing amount of physical problems or disabilities much more than they can overlook psychological problems. I had a friend who was wheelchair-bound, deformed, and only about 3.5 feet tall due to Osteogenesis Imperfecta, but he was a charming, fun guy, and even he was not completely without sexual experience.

When I think about the men I have known who were complete and utter omegas, I can't think of any who fall within the "normal and functional" ranges of adult life who were hopeless, except for maybe one college friend. He was possibly the smartest and most well-read person I have ever known, and very assertive, but quite unattractive, radiated a certain shrill, feminine anger, and spoke in a high-pitched feminine voice. I struggle to think of any way this guy could come across as attractive to a woman sexually, although he had many female friends. Later he came out as gay, although his love of show tunes and Martha Stewart books had pretty much convinced me already.

jlw said...


I'm not sure how I could "show you" these omegas. I can say I know a couple and have known several over the years. (I'm in my 40's.)

Like Rycamor said, VD has identified several characteristics at the link above. His list doesn't appear to be limited to just "metally ill" or "seriously crippled" so I think you two disagree as well. Maybe VD will weigh in himself.

LostSailor said...

When I first moved to New York, many years ago, I answered an ad for roommate in an apartment with a guy that was the very embodiment of a hopeless omega. I'll call him Fred.

Fred wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he worked in one of the city's Borough Engineers Office (though he was not an engineer), and was in most ways a completely functional and mostly normal man, and while not particularly good looking, he wasn't totally repugnant. But he had piss-poor social skills. He was okay in negotiating the regular social interactions of daily life just fine, but he had absolutely no idea on how to talk to women.

When I would bring a fling or a GF home, they would often take pity on him, but after about 10 minutes of talking with him, his ineptness would physically repel them. I would watch, sometimes bemused, as they would cringe and give me desperate glances begging rescue ("hey, I told you just to say hi and leave it at that. You wanted a conversation with him...")

I even tried to give him some pointers, but soon realized that he simply could not comprehend them and never would. As far as I know, he had never had a GF, though there were occasional allusions to hookers.

One GF asked, "why do you live with that loser?" He charged me ridiculously low rent, something like $250 for a share in a Manhattan apartment, allowing me to stash a lot of cash away, travel, etc. I have occasionally seen him over the years, though not to talk to. He hasn't changed at all. They are sad creatures.

Yohami said...

I've met a few guys like that, I sort of was one. I know omegas exist, Im just not so sure about the "hopeless" part.

Unknown said...

I am very enjoyed for this blog. I feel strongly about it and love very important information. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.
scripts, NLP, vance, book, advertisement

Post a Comment