Tom Torero fakes an infield kiss close

December 12, 2014

The latest scandal-of-the-week is that famous daygame instructor Tom Torero was caught out having hired an actress to appear in a “kiss close” video recorded outside Selfridges on Oxford Street in summer 2012. I can’t stay out of it because: (I) the hater who found out about the actress set up fake forum accounts as “krauserpua” in order to blame the scandal on me (ii) Tom is the main co-creator of the London Daygame Model that I use and teach (iii) Tom is a personal friend of mine. So, here’s my response. First the facts:

  • Yes, Tom did fake that infield as he has admitted on his website here.
  • No, I didn’t know he had faked it until he admitted it to me in a private message shortly before posting his public admission.

It’s incredibly difficult to get accurate information about the sexual market place. Both men and women lie about everything be it notch counts, intentions, quality and so on. It’s also incredibly difficult to get accurate information about the seduction process because it’s a necessarily private affair which you can’t simply film. Girls won’t react naturally if they know a camera is on, they won’t want you to record them due to fears over their reputation, and there are additional legal issues if you’re recording in a situation that has the “assumption of privacy”. Nothing new here, but it creates a huge transparency problem which is ruthlessly exploited by the charlatans and fakes in the PUA industry who will either lie, evade or use smoke’n’mirrors to convey a credibility to their customers that they don’t deserve.

As players / wannabe players, you are fully aware how difficult it is to decide who you can trust. Which teacher? Which system? What is a reasonably expectation of success?

That’s why there’s such a big reaction to Tom’s infield revelation. For several years he had distinguished himself as someone who could be trusted by virtue of his copious library of infield recordings on the street, on dates, and even in the bedroom. People could watch the videos, conclude “Tom is legit” and this tough issue was resolved. The realisation that one of these videos is fake suddenly upsets the apple cart. People are asking themselves “so is he just another charlatan?”

I predict there will be two types of reaction to this news based upon whether the recipient has met Tom personally and seen him in action, or hasn’t.

People Who Don’t Know Tom – Earnest students of Game will quite reasonably conclude he’s a fraud, that this video expose is damning evidence, and that he can thus be thrown in the dustbin alongside Mehow, Vince Kelvin, David DeAngelo and others who have been either caught faking or otherwise never proved their bona fides. I can’t say I blame them. It’s important to be skeptical of people’s claims and to demand evidence. It’s reasonable to give special weight to those incidents which suggest dishonesty. In addition to genuine students of the Game, the PUAhater crowd will also seize on this as further evidence that Game Doesn’t Work. Tom was an average-looking man banging hot girls (something which can’t happen according to the Looks-Money-Status crowd) so the fact he faked one video will immediately lead them to include every single one of his successes was faked. There’s not much to say about that. PUAhater’s are mentally ill. Let them wallow in their own misery.

People Who Do Know Tom – What’s interesting to me is that over the years Tom has taught hundreds of students, and hundreds more have used the day game model he created with me (and others). Literally hundreds of people have seen Tom live in-set with their own eyes in unfakeable interactions. Hundreds have been live in-set themselves implementing advice they got from Tom and then seeing the effect it has on the girls. These people have enough direct evidence of their own eyes that (i) Tom’s daygame skills are for real and (ii) the London Daygame Model works, that the fact Tom got caught red-handed faking one infield doesn’t really matter. Yes, it was a bad thing to do. But no, it doesn’t shake their confidence in the model or Tom’s abilities as a coach.

What’s my opinion?

Tom shouldn’t have done this because it was dishonest. However, it’s small potatoes. I remember watching the video back in 2012 and thinking “pretty weak set, no big deal” and never thinking of it again. It’ll all blow over and we’ll all continue hitting the streets, banging hot girls, and tweaking the model. I’m certainly not going to distance myself from Tom to “protect my reputation”. He’s my friend and I’ve seen with my own eyes that his daygame skills are for real.

Tom is an elite-level daygamer, possibly more skilled than I am. You’re well within your rights to cut him off your “guy to listen to” list after this video expose but if you do so you’ll be missing out.

The Street Seducer

December 1, 2014

Lest any of you think the tumbleweed blowing across the empty streets of my blog is a sign that I’m being lazy…… here’s a short teaser of the upcoming Daygame Overkill.

Winter Hibernation

November 18, 2014

I’m pretty damn sick of game and travel now. It’s been one hell of a year, and yet again the current year was an improvement on the prior year – for the fifth straight year. Life is great, I’m just worn out. I need to do all those things normal people do – hobbies, reading, sleeping in late, hitting the gym. So, I’m not sure what will happen with the blog for the remainder of 2014. I’m putting a lot of energy into editing Daygame Overkill and that’s killing me. There are also a few books in the pipeline.

My goal was to make 2014 the year of great products, and then resume normal blogging and gaming in 2015. That’s still the plan. So I’m hoping to get these last few products into a good enough state by New Year that I can just tinker around with them at my leisure in 2015 and still get a decent release schedule. We shall see.

Don’t expect to see any +1s for a while. I’m not opening, texting, or long gaming any girls. I had 23 new girls in 2014 and another 8 repeats. That’s quite enough, thanks.

Balls Deep – Book launch event in London

November 3, 2014

UPDATE: Balls Deep paperback is now on sale here. 408 pages of squalid daygame action and theory.

Even now I chuckle at the name of my new memoir. So, aside from being the satisfying end-state of a successful street pick-up, was else does Balls Deep mean?

Like most men in these parts I read Neil Strauss’s seminal book The Game and was hugely inspired. It seemed so sleazy, so underground and so…. plausible. A secret community of Pick Up Artists who had cracked the code for how a normal man can bang large numbers of hot girls. There were just a few problems:

  • The men were rather abnormal (well, subnormal)
  • There wasn’t much banging going on (I think there are three lay reports in the whole book)
  • The girls weren’t hot (when I finally saw Mystery’s “10” Katya, I was rather underwhelmed)
When I grow up I want to be just like you

When I grow up I want to be just like you

Anyway, luckily for me I didn’t see through the smoke and mirrors until I’d already become a daydream daygame believer. Flaws aside, Neil’s book set me on a path to which I’m eternally grateful to him for. So, The Game was his story and nicely mythologised the 2002-era Los Angeles scene. Ten years later Tom Torero did his version, giving a window into the 2012-era London scene. That’s not as well written as Neil’s but one thing it certainly isn’t lacking is lay reports with large numbers of hot girls.

I want in on that racket.

My books have a reputation for being high-falutin’ and theoretically dense, which is how I like it. However that’s not necessarily what the ravenous crowds want. They want blood, guts… and semen stains. Most readers really connect to two things:

  • Wild stories
  • Pain

Yes, what the punters really relate to is the journey. The endless grind on the streets, shuffling head-down hands in your pockets through driving rain, scanning the streets for a confused-looking tourist with a backpack and Pret sandwich. Then the sporadic victory stories when you manage to hustle her into a pub, get her tipsy and bundle her into a cab for the same day lay. They know the Magic Pill marketing happy talk is bullshit.

There's gotta be some $$$ in this racket

There’s gotta be some $$$ in this racket

Every reader of this blog knows the reality. Sometimes you hit extended periods of joy and exuberance, but usually the pattern is pain-pain-pain-euphoria-pain-pain over and over again. That’s what I wanted to convey in Balls Deep – the reality of getting through your first year or two. The period where you are full of hope and drive, but also lacking the reference experiences and skills to know you’ll get there in the end. Well, I got there in the end. And for me, those first two years were rough. Really, really rough. So I’m going to tell you all about it and walk you through the minutiae of how it feels to begin the daygame journey. And then the victory stories began to trickle through. And after that the true squalor and sleaziness.

As I looked back and wrote Balls Deep I was amazed at myself. Did I really start feeling up that girl’s tits on the street outside Zara three minutes after meeting her? Did I really walk that Russian catwalk model home in an hour? How on earth did I fail to escalate that Georgian dancer with the denium shorts and crop top? More than anything, I’m amazed that no matter how many days I returned home dejected and lead-less, I was back out again to jump back in front of the bus.

Chapter 1

Chapter 18

The Launch
I’m in London this weekend to film my new in-field product Daygame Overkill. Seeing as I’m in town, why not pimp out my new book too? So on Sunday I’ll hire a pub function room and host an early-afternoon launch event. Specifics aren’t confirmed yet but I’ll do a talk and probably get a fellow daygamer to do so too. I’ll have a pile of paperbacks to sell (and sign, should that turn you on). It’ll be informal, with plenty of time to hang out and chat over a beer. Maybe I’ll charge £5 cover, depends if the pub charges for the room.

Balls Deep will be £20. It’s 408 pages of filth, polished to the same standard as Mastery.

Let me know in the comments if you’re interested in (I) attending and (ii) a copy of the book. That’ll help me decide the venue size and how many copies to bring. I’ll announce details later this week.

Daygame Overkill – live event in London

October 24, 2014

UPDATE – All seats are booked now.

Yes, you read that right. The euro-jaunt season is drawing to a close and I’m packing my suitcase and heading home to England for a while. London has always been my spiritual (daygame) home and there’s a great community of guys hitting the streets on a regular basis.

What better place to unveil my new in-field product?

I’m sure a few of you just spluttered your tea over your laptop screen. Yes, after two years of steadfastly refusing to shoot infields I actually decided to take Daygame Mastery the next step and show the model in action. And I mean real r-selection daygame. None of that showboating YouTube shit.

Set 15

It all happened when I was trying (and failing) to sleep on the motorway bus from Belgrade to Zagreb. I’d had a shitty time because a complicated wisdom-tooth extraction had left me with constant pain for three weeks. Zero vibe, bad luck. Fuck my luck. So while the sun was shining and the Yugoslav countryside whizzed by I could feel the painkillers kick in and the new town promised new adventure. My mate Bojangles was flying in to meet me. Obviously I had a number-farm coming up. New town, new adventure.

So why not film the whole number farm? If I could just persuade Bojangles to hold the camera, I could mic up and capture the whole thing. Then I’d pick the most useful videos to teach from. Let the world’s daygamers see how the new improved London Daygame Model looks.

Daygame Overkill slide

You’ll be surprised. It is very different to the stuff currently out there.

Sure, at first blush it looks the same. There’s the street stop (usually), the push-pull opener, the vibing phase, progressively slipping into investment, and of course lots of comparisons to small furry animals. But look again – the subtleties are all different. And once they are pointed out to you, you’ll realise why 95% of YouTube infields are dogshit.

I’ve got 25 infield videos on my laptop. Ten of them are goldmines for explaining the model in precise detail and letting you see it moment-by-moment. This isn’t flash game – I didn’t go for street kiss closes, nor did I stop girls riding unicycles. This was straightforward daygame-to-get-laid.

And get laid I did. On my second day with a twenty year old student. Then a blowjob off a nineteen year old virgin on my third day. I’ll prove I’m not bullshitting in the same way I always have (heh!). I’ll explain exactly why it was those two girls who went for it fast. You can see it in the subtleties during the infields and text messages.

Set 7

I’ll prove these weren’t worthless flakey numbers (well, some were but I’ll explain the difference between what stuck and what disappeared into vapour – that’s part of the point of capturing the videos in the first place). So, this is the deal

Saturday 8th November in Central London I will host a live seminar in a function room. There’ll be a big screen to display the in-field videos and related instructional slides. There’ll be a cameraman taping it for an upcoming video release. This will be a hyper-detailed analysis. No vague ideas, no rushed gibberish, no sitting on a couch waffling, no generic PUA concepts you’ve heard a million times before. It will be theoretically-solid. I think it’ll last about eight hours. Admission will be for fifteen people. It’ll cost £50 for the day (50% deposit in advance). And for that princely sum you’ll see this programme:

  • Ten infield videos of mine, all new (shot beginning of October) for this product
  • Full analysis and breakdown of all the subtleties and nuances so you know exactly what you’re seeing and why it’s happening
  • A theoretical exposition of r-selected daygame and why it should replace the current k-selection most guys are learning.
  • How to recognise if a girl is Yes, Maybe or No using live infield examples
  • Question and answer session after every infield
  • Bonus for live attendees only – A video walkthrough of beating LMR.

Event registration is now closed.

Set 11

I’m pretty excited about this. Daygame Mastery is about to come to life!

Players outrank Scientists in the art of seduction

October 21, 2014

If I could offer one piece of advice to the newly-red-pilled reader of the manosphere it would be this:

Stop listening to all the pompous fools in comment sections of manosphere blogs. If you have a question about women, go try it out on ten hot women and then see if you still have your question.

Having just scrolled through the comments thread in a recent Rollo post while eating pizza, I was sufficiently exasperated that I’m going to break my embargo on arguing against aspy gammas. There’s a larger point that needs making that is derailing some relative noobs. It all started when Rollo was kind enough to quote an old tweet of mine regarding the development of Game knowledge in order to make a point about how the progression of red pill knowledge owes a huge debt to the orginal PUAs it has become fashionable to discredit.

PUA and social science

It’s a great post and includes a rather obvious thought experiment that nonetheless had never occurred to me:

“Now, imagine for a moment that, today, all men had to build on was the antiseptic studies and controlled experiments of a social science academia firmly steeped in a feminine-primary, feminine-correct social context…. Only the PUAs of then and now have had the unfettered freedom to perform in-field social experiments, and relate their collected evidence and observations with other men; the types of which social science has been forbidden from due either to ethical considerations or by feminine-primary social conventions.”

To translate into English: PUAs had the freedom to conduct research that social scientists could not, and thus broke new ground.

That’s an incredibly important observation and Rollo does a great job walking through exactly which areas of red pill wisdom we now take for granted that had to be earned the hard way by PUAs in the field before there was any reliable and valid data for the manosphere philosophers to ponder and construct theories from.

Now, let’s start with a few basic principles.

  • Internet comment threads about Game are almost entirely a battle of awkward intellectual one-upmanship by fronters who have zero ability to score hot women themselves.
  • The manosphere is rapidly becoming a knitting circle of witless feminised men and aspy gamma bullies treating Game as if it were an abstract historical concept rather than a real-life testable theory.
  • You really shouldn’t be claiming authority on Game until you’ve had proven results in the field. Any dickhead can run his mouth on the internet whereas getting younger-hotter-tighter girls into bed requires actual compliance from the real world that suggests your theory works.

So the gamma fool in this case is siirtyrion (and to a much lesser extent, braggart Glenn, who is co-opted into his misunderstanding of science). The first fallacy is to misunderstand what science actually is. Despite claiming to be a scientist Siirtyrion doesn’t appear to know what science is. What it is not:

  • Wearing a lab coat and handling petri dishes
  • A set of framed postgrad degrees on your wall
  • The length of your bookcase
  • Your citations in journals

Science is an epistemology. Really, go read some Karl Popper. It is a way of knowing the world based mostly upon the principle of falsification. Additionally the two cornerstones of data collection is it must be reliable (possible to consistently collect data that reproduce the same results) and valid (it measures what it claims to measure). Let’s put that into simple examples:

  • If you boil water with a thermometer in it, the temperature will show 100C at the time the water boils no matter how strong the heat source. Whether you boil it ten times or a thousand times, whether slowly on a small flame or quickly on a strong flame, it’ll always show 100C. Thus you have reliable data that water boils at 100C based on experimental evidence.
  • If you boil water with a variable flame while playing Aqua’s hit Barbie Girl on repeat, the water will boil at different times during the song. Every time you boil the water, you record a different time. Thus if you first record the boiling at line four of the fifth chorus, you cannot reliably reproduce that result.
  • If you measure the water temperature with a thermometer, you are getting a valid measurement of the heat. The thermometer measures what it claims to measure – temperature.
  • If you instead measure it by rolling a pair of dice to bounce off the pot, that’s an invalid measurement. The numbers turned up by the dice have no connection to the phenomena under measurement.

Simple stuff. It becomes complex when applied to social science. It has long been a bugbear in the philosophy of science that natural scientists can be incredibly arrogant over their self-perceived superiority in collecting data. Partly this is because the natural world is quite orderly, predictable, mechanistic and doesn’t change much through the act of observation. The social world is far far more complex and thus the explanatory power of social science comes with all kinds of caveats. Consider the Hawthorne Effect noted when factory workers were measured operating under different lighting conditions. Both the Control and the Experimental groups improved performance, leading to a conclusion that:

“a phenomenon whereby individuals improve or modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed”

The old guard of social science knew the problems of social measurement but people from the natural sciences often bring their simplistic data collection strategies over to the social world without due regard for the inherent limitations of measuring people. This mistake is particularly bad with evo-psych majors. Just think of the obvious reality of science as it’s actually carried out in research facilities and compare it to the infield experiments of PUAs:


  • Ask a bunch of grad students to sit down in a air-conditioned seminar room, pour a cup of cheap coffee, and as them about hypothetical situations and to write down answers with a pencil. Grade those papers according to your own classification system and then torture the data with tests of statistical significance.
  • Dig up some old skeletons and pots from an ancient civilisation. Fit the pieces together and then interpret them in light of what scraps remain of their few written texts.
  • Watch some baboons mating, discern some patterns, then imagine the primates are human and draw conclusions.


  • Go hit on some actual women in real live environments, try to fuck them, then figure out what went well and what didn’t.

Just ask yourself which research strategy is more valid? Which group are getting closer to the phenomena they are trying to measure and are eliciting more accurate raw data about actual human mating? This is why Glenn’s following comment is so wrong-headed:

“Let’s say Krauser does 1000 approaches and gets laid 11 times. The only way to tell if game works is to have a non-game trained guy, with the same SMV, do 1000 approaches as well to the same girls. Tell me, do you think that guy won’t get laid at all? Siirtyrion is saying that this guy would probably do just about as well as Krauser, given similar attractiveness. If you don’t have control data like this – you aren’t doing science, period, and everything you conclude from “the data” is horseshit, like the statement that Rollo quoted from Krauser.”

His simplistic conception of the scientific method (essentially “it must be a controlled experiment” without regard for the limitations, and ignoring the same person can be tested in different time periods to measure progression) means he misses the very obvious fact that going in field is the only way to get valid data. Even if you get perfectly reliable lab data, it’s just in a lab. It’s not valid. It’s close to worthless. Glenn isn’t just throwing the baby out with the bathwater (a sign of binary thinking), he’s throwing his hands in the air in despair that such data can even be collected…. until he wants to give credence to scientists doing a much worse job of approaching the same phenomena.

The obvious answer is lost on gamma males because that’s the one thing gammas don’t ever do – hit on women and successfully fuck them. Let’s review the relevant characteristics of the gamma male:

  • Constant need to posture as superior to those around him, especially per his intellect.
  • Completely deluded about his low SMV rank and thus in denial.
  • Always constructing elaborate theoretical structures that conveniently place him at a high SMV rank (in his own mind).
  • Relating long-winded, highly-suspect, completely unsubstantiated tales of their own successes with HB8.5s.

So the existence of PUAs presents something of a dilemma for the game-denying gamma. He can’t possible argue based on real-world experience (he sucks with women and won’t risk his precious ego by hitting on them), he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is, he needs to deny Game works in order to avoid admitting he’s too scared to do cold approach, yet he absolutely must prove to the world that he’s awesome. What to do?

Go look at siirtyrion’s (and glenn’s) comments to find out.

There’s a reason Tom Torero and I constantly admonish readers to go out into the field – 90% of the Game is played while standing in front of women. Without the discipline of infield feedback a small theoretical mis-step becomes a flight of fancy and eventually cascades into going completely off track into comfortable delusion. The woman is your mirror. You need compliance in your life, and when it comes to Game you can only get that by cold approach.


My own success ratios were, rather ironically, used as evidence against Game. Apparently I have a low success ratio that suggests Game doesn’t work and I got my few successes either because (i) blind luck – the numbers game or (ii) determinism – there’s a limited number of girls who would consort with a man of my SMV rank and cold approach is just flipping stones to find them.

There’s a few problems with this reading.

  1. My results demonstrably improved over time, every single year. In my first 1,000 approaches I didn’t get laid at all. I’ve approached maybe 400 girls this year and had sex with 19 of them.
  2. I’m having sex with girls who are, on average, 16 years younger than me and two points hotter. That should be impossible under the deterministic explanation. And of course you’d expect the success ratio to be low – that’s what happens when you aim high. It’s why boxers do statistically better in their tune-up fights than their title shots.

Aspy gammas don’t have the nuance or experience to read soft data – such as me knowing that it’s taking less effort to get the same girls now that I’ve improved my skills. After indulging his trolls for a while Rollo eventually correctly identified the true scam that the gammas are running:

“I’ve perused Siirtyrion’s blog and while I respect his observations and intellectualism, I can’t help but come away with the impression that he’s more on a personal crusade to discredit Game than he has any real interest in the evo-psych basis of intergender relations.”

What’s interesting is how successfully such intelligent and posturing gammas such as siirtyrion can out-frame the weak-willed ninnies of the manosphere comment sections and get them dancing to their tune. At no point are the ninnies demanding evidence that the gammas can actually pull hot women. It’s to forewarn these impressionable noobs that I’m pointing out the gamma ego-validation racket perpetuated in Game blog comment sections.

Stop acting as if scientists are the authority on seducing women. When academia disagrees with successful players, it’s the academics who are wrong. Just look at their wives.

Good-looking guy game

October 17, 2014

I’ve been watching some YouTube infields lately. It’s a pretty varied bunch out there. On the one hand you have the total clowns spam-approaching London tourists, oblivious to the girls’ IODs, with a merry stream of equally-oblivious cheerleader chodes in the comments. It’s quite berbaric barbaric, so I won’t name names. Then there are also some really well-done videos. I watched some of Willie Beck’s fast bar pulls and SDLs, the RSD hot seat promos, and some of what Street Attraction are doing in London. There’s something good going on.

Shave heads are "in"

Shave heads are “in”

It’s given me some food for thought. Let’s start with the positives.

  • I think it’s great that real-life seduction is being taped, logged and disseminated so the mass of men can see what it really looks like. When I was coming up in 2009 there were only a few dozen infields online and it was mostly trash like Mehow and Carlos Xuma. Even a guy like Mystery, who I genuinely respect, had only some of his lame sets online. The internet is currently flooded with infields of guys who actually get laid showing you them getting laid in real-time. That’s a tremendous positive. Well done fellas.
  • I think it’s great that new talent is coming up through the ranks and bringing their own take on seduction. For example Beck is really pushing the r-selected bad boy vibe and escalating hard. The Street Attraction guys are doing the normal London Daygame Model but have added a prankster vibe in some sets, and a fast escalation vibe in others. Again, well done fellas. I like to see new guys shake things up a little.

This brings me to the main value that such infields provide – they show you what seduction really looks like. Not how you may imagine it based on reading a book or getting into a dick-waving contest on a forum. These guys are successfully knobbing girls and letting you act as a fly on the wall. But as you guessed, there’s another fly and it’s in the ointment. Not necessarily with the guys I’ve just named but their videos served as a jumping-off point that got me thinking about it.

Jason Statham, yesterday

Jason Statham, yesterday

One thing I’ve noticed in all the most impressive infields, especially the fast crazy pulls, is the player is always better-looking than the girl he’s pulling. They are failing the younger-hotter-tighter test. And that’s a big failing. The whole point of Game is to score girls younger and hotter than you. If you’re pulling exactly the type of girls you ought to be pulling anyway without Game, then pulling them a bit faster or in higher quantity doesn’t really say much. It just means you’re working a bit harder than you used to. So let’s break this down for the average man. The man who isn’t 6’2”, twenty-seven years old, with attractive facial features. You know, 95% of men.

The single most important factor in r-selection sex is looks (by that I include height, physique and facial structure)

So why do people like Tom and I bang on about r-selection so much when we clearly don’t have looks (or age) going for us? Because the next most important factor is charisma, then attitude, and then work-rate. If you lack the number one factor you can still get the job done by maxing out the other three. It’s just much harder. I don’t mind hard work – I’m just glad it’s even possible.

This is how it works when a good-looking guy tries r-selected daygame. I’ve seen this first hand with a bunch of them.

  1. Walk around looking good.
  2. Catch a huge number of approach invitations from girls between 1 and 3 points below you.
  3. Let the first ten IOIs pass because you still don’t like rejection or approaching.
  4. Open the most receptive-looking girl with a “hey”
  5. Stand smiling for a few seconds while she giggles, blushes and flutters her eyelashes.
  6. Give a direct compliment, so you feel like you’re doing real game. “You look pretty hot.”
  7. Inane chit-chat for a minute and take a number.
  8. Marvel at the low flake rate. Invite her out for a date the next night, at a bar next to your apartment.
  9. Turn up on date and don’t really think much about game. Just chat, and occasionally sit back and be quiet.
  10. Around 10pm say “lets go back to my place for some wine”. Girl enthusiastically agrees.
  11. Take her to bed. No LMR.

That’s really all there is to it when you’re good-looking. It’s not Game. It’s just “warm-open, escalate, lead”. There are no roadblocks. You don’t need to pick yourself up after a run of harsh rejections. You don’t need to amplify attraction. You don’t need to carefully choose the right moments to escalate. You don’t need to build emotional connection. You don’t need to surmount LMR. It’s playing the game on Easy Mode – and if that’s still not easy enough you can use Tinder. Now let’s consider how it is for the normal man trying r-selected daygame.

  1. Walk around as if you’re invisible to women. Try to force IOIs and get blanked constantly
  2. Weasel the first few sets because you’re expecting blowouts or flat timewaster sets.
  3. Build up courage and throw yourself in there. The first few go nowhere but remind you it’s not so bad really.
  4. Try really hard to hit a good vibe, because you know vibe is the only thing that ever really compensates for lack of good looks. It might take a while. You might not even manage it this day and have to try again tomorrow.
  5. A combination of good vibe, carefully-honed skills, and good luck mean you’ve reached hook point with your first hot girl, who seems to be giggling and eye-sparkling. So you try a spike. She excuses herself – “I have a boyfriend” or “I’m late for my lecture.” She leaves.
  6. You drag yourself back up the mountain and hit some flow. You collect four or five numbers in about fifteen sets. Some pretty girls, some a bit plain. At times you really had good patter and were buzzing with vibrancy and charisma. Okay, time to go off the clock. You’re a bit tired now.
  7. Half the numbers flake. Two girls respond enthusiastically, one of whom inexplicably just stops replying. You get the remaining girl on a date three days later.
  8. The date goes okay. You run the model, draw her in, spike her up and after two hours you build the right moment for a kiss. She fights off the first few tries but is obviously enjoying herself. You get the kiss in the end but she won’t come back to your apartment.
  9. Two weeks later, after four or five such dates earned through a week of hard graft on the street, you’ve fucked one of the girls and the rest have gone flat. You feel a grand sense of accomplishment at surmounting such a demanding challenge and getting a girl twenty-years younger than you and two points hotter.

I’ve perhaps exaggerated it a little to draw the contrast but that’s the reality. So enjoy watching GLGG on YouTube and absorb what you can about the process, but don’t think what they are doing is “game” or that it’s applicable to your life. They are on the ski lift whizzing up to the top of the mountain while you’re plodding up with a tree branch for a walking stick and two tennis racquets tied to your feet for snowshoes. And what a surprise – at the resort bar at the end of the day, they are sipping beer and telling everyone how easy skiing is.

Symbolism, yesterday

Symbolism, yesterday

Pretty soon I’ll be showing you (yes, show not tell) what normal-guy r-selected daygame looks like. Stay tuned.

Create a free website or blog at | The Tuned Balloon Theme.

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 465 other followers