So you’re saying you could judge a guy’s potential by taking a looking at a full body shot – assuming he has a good sense of game (1 year, thousand approaches), reasonable fashion, and no weird personality quirks? Or you could at least point out the range of girls he should focus on?
Say if I were to email you a pic, Krauser….because right now I get nothing despite loads of effort. Perhaps you could respond with a pic of a comparable girl (in your view) and a +1 girl/ -1 girl?
It can be hard to “see” yourself objectively and people too close to you hate giving bad news. [Ok. I’d advise you send the same details to Tom too, for a second opinion. K.]
How do you know when you’ve tapped out your genetic potential with game?
I’m guessing it goes something like this:
Low skills, makes no epically huge mistakes but is mainly just working on volume of approaches: girls 1 / 2 points below him.
Moderate skills. Doesn’t really make mistakes, but at the same time doesn’t do anything massively special. Girls on his level / 1 point below.
High skills. Perfect game. Really captures the girls imagination. Perfect sub communications. Great inner game. Girls 1 / 2 points above him.
I’m guessing it’s probably impossible to get girls more than 2 points above you with any degree of regularity. [It’s an interesting point. I don’t yet know the answer. My results keep improving year-on-year, so I won’t know until I hit a plateau I can’t pass. Based on last time I saw you, I think your physical appearance is almost tapped-out at top potential so the bigger gains will be (i) inner game (ii) leaving London (iii) verbal game (iv) fine tuning aesthetic to better present the archetype you’re displaying. But in terms of raw value, you’ve already took your aesthetic near it’s max. K.]
I’m trying to eradicate bullshit/sophistry from my life.
Krauser, two questions:
(a) What if we just killed the concept of phases? There are a lot of very fundamental themes in game: gender differences, social brainwashing, dating market value, etc. These are very important as they positively impact your planning/acting/evaluating/belief process. In the literature, there’s also front-and-center the concept of linear “phases” (e.g. your Daygame Model), but that one smells like bullshit.
Does an author think about the climax and denouement when writing a book? No, he’s thinking about the audience and the ebb and flow of tension. Does a player think “am I done with A2?” “am I in the comfort stage now?” No. He’s thinking heuristics like “always be escalating,” “avoid buyer’s remorse,” “make sure she’s hooked before talking less,” “draw out emotions a bit to build connection,” “keep track of how much value/comfort she feels,” “leave No girls alone,” etc. Indeed, as an exercise you can in your head derive the “most likely” sequence of phases once you’ve read the heuristics.
I think phases only hurt your game by clogging your mind. I don’t understand why sequencing is emphasized. To me it just seems like a silly little pattern fit imperfectly to the wealth of advice and stories we have in the literature. At best, maybe they’re a “check your work”: if your game doesn’t have these phases, you’re probably not getting younger, hotter, tighter. (Do you ever think about phases when YOU pick-up?)
(b) What if we killed the concept of internal/external referencing? I’ve heard it in two contexts, both bullshit, as far as i can tell:
(i) Balancing internal/external referencing in your own life– We’re all genetically designed to be externally referenced, it’s just a matter of timescale. So why not just think about your primal need for short-term validation balanced against the importance of developing good principles (through experience, reading, reflection, etc.) which deliver medium term happiness and future ego validation? Instant gratification vs delayed gratification, in other words. It’s bullshit to think “hmm… should I reference myself internally here or externally?” But it’s smart to think, “hmm.. short-term ego boost or the longer-term one?”
People who are too externally referenced: you have no principles.
People who are too internally referenced: you have messed-up principles. Get some short-term validation and maybe you’ll fix them up.
(ii) Judging how internally/externally referenced a girl is. You can use the dichotomy above, Or you can use the introverted/extroverted gradient. Internal vs external referencing seems a fuzzy, unnecessary combination.
Now, I’m a game amateur, so take these with a grain of salt. They were just two concepts my brain rejected. (Maybe I don’t have enough experience to understand them? Dunno.) [I wouldn’t go so far as to say you’re wrong, but you aren’t right either. I don’t think you understood the message of Daygame Mastery. K.]
I read a bit and immediately changed my mind on the phases thing. Hot girl on the street -> bang is remarkably repeatable. Nice model.
I now understand the marketing message about “this is for people doing dozens of cold approaches on the street.”
I guess it’s just a bonus that a large part of it is applicable to e.g. social circle game, which I think requires a bit of transformation the “daygame model”.
Temporarily changing locations showed me how much hotter I can get if I just moved.
Living in North America (with a couple exceptions ) is a huge downgrade to central and eastern europe.
My time in Poland I was turning away girls that I would have to work hard for in my home city. I felt the same about Berlin as well, having dark skin makes you pretty shiny to the girls there.
I bet for men who are North America based, the biggest result improvement will come from moving.
Exactly! Im not dark skinned but when I did a Balkans jaunt i couldn’t keep the girls from me! Compared to freaking NA where you either settle with an 8 or bang 6 on rotation. 6 disgust me so i had to forget my ego and settle for a LTR with an 8, which disgusted me at myself, trading my liberty for such weak comforts. Keep on killing it bro!
You have stated this point a few times in your previous posts, I have to say your theory (or fact) makes sense but I wanna disagree and say that while looks ofcourse affect your game massively, but its still a game of compensation. The better looking you are, the less game you need and vice versa. If you are lets say below average on attractiveness, you can “compensate” that with a good level of game. My argument is, if for example we take “Tyler Durden the character as a demonstration, if he wasnt a young brad pitt looking guy and was instead a non good looking guy he would still be the same powerful leader.
I also think its unfair comparing getting good at “game” with getting good at a sport. Game is basically about social adaptiveness while running is a physical challenge. Women are attracted to power thats for sure. However power in the modern time comes in a social cunning form. you can always learn to be charming and work to improve on your charisma that one day you CAN be the Usian Bolt of game. Anyways I just wanted your thoughts about how genetics affect your status in the social heirarchy. [Getting laid is not about social adaptiveness. It’s about getting girls aroused and wanting to fuck, of which looking good is the single easiest way. Genetics also determines the limits to your IQ, temperament and social acuity which affect the quality of the game you can learn. K.]
Miss the articles maaaan Lol
This archetype thing is interesting would love to read the classic krauser style breakdown of how to bring I out in yourself, or is it covered in depth on 1 of the books? Cheers anyway your The man.
Krauser, what do girls usually rate you as on the looks scale? Im just asking cause you have mentioned before that with some girls you feel like the good looking guy ( easy to escalate, dont fuck up game), and with others you have to work more. I get that not every girl will like you, but Im confused when say a serbian chick tells me I look very handsome, and a french who calls me plain, and a morrocan woman who calls me above average looks ar best. Have you encountered this in your game life, or do you always get told you look above average looking or ugly or plain? Btw did you watch Welcome to New York, they should have made a cameo of Jabba/Krauser?
1. girls mix up physical attractiveness with attractiveness
“Girls will often describe a physically unattractive but charismatic man who arouses them as “cute” because they don’t have the verbal tools to describe his mysterious allure in anything but herd-like universal terms of attraction. This is why you shouldn’t bother taking a girl’s words describing what turns her on at face value. “Cute” literally can mean a thousand different things to a girl if she likes a man enough.” http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/the-power-of-dread-game/
2. girls have different preferences, due to their masculinity/femininity
bloggers note eastern european girls are feminine (and thus prefer masculine guys a la K who can handle a challenge), western european girls masculine (and thus prefer “hot” guys)
so serbian girl maybe more feminine and likes pale, oldish, strong, wealthy-looking, common-sense guy more. maybe that’s you
3. Krauser has noted that of the girls in his ping range, some are “Yes girls” (and will of course say he looks young and hot), others are not (and I infer would say he’s plain and old)
4. if a girl says “plain” she’ll be more likely to think that in the future (consistency and commitment effect)
so a girl who says “plain” is artificially making it extra hard for you (assuming you have high value)
solution: show your value before she thinks “plain”
and when a girl says “hot” it helps her attraction for you (good girl!)
Would be interesting for K to comment more precisely– e.g. how many points a girl can vary in her preferences.
Narmno…you’re way too logical. I recommend choosing one product and learning from it combined with action. Daygame Mastery or Badass Buddha. BB has less info but forces you to get out of your head more.
Xman, thx. These months I’m in college focused on getting a $400k first year job, so to keep my vibe good for job interviews I have to be low effort with my game, focusing on universal principles (social skills, etc.). If I go too much out of my comfort zone, I’ll mess up, and from experience it’s tough to do a good job interview if it’s a day after an ugly breakup.
So I’m low effort and less lay-focused (15hrs/week): lifestyle, networking with guys, chatting up girls if I see them and 45/min day reading game.
I think your advice to stop lazily reading blogs and focus more on books is good.
“$400k first year job”? CS guys from the ivy leagues are making max $250k including stock options working at Facebook and the like, I-bankers from Ivies at bulge bracket firms are making at most $200k . What is your plan?
All accurate figures there Nostromo. Indeed I have job offers for the $200k – $250k CS stuff. The CS/startups stuff sounds boring but it can be fun, because you can mix in your marketing/sales knowledge (related to game) for product ideas, your sociopathic social skills (related to game) to fit in and be well-liked, your logic/focus/theory knowledge (related to game) to code effectively. Then you outclass your peers and work on high-impact projects. So not bad at all, as long as you avoid the large places where you get into that dead-end.
$400k is for a high-end HFT job, requiring CS + math skills + work ethic (though a lot of HFT jobs pay only $150k-$250k first year). (And, sure, it’s more like $350k due to the way bonuses are vested.) But it increases to a couple million dollars after a couple years experience.
When choosing a focus between game and career, I’m reminded of Frost’s poem The Road Not Taken: maybe game LOOKS more appealing, but sometimes it’s smarter to follow the path set by your rich, intelligent elders.
I think Xman’s advice relates to the fact that you need focus to get better (you want to learn themes; you want ask “why”; you want to tie it into your life; you want to learn from experience to sniff out all the biases and all your weak points; you want experiential knowledge to get good expectations, instincts, etc.). So I appreciate his advice.
Finally, if I sound overly logical, I would say that that’s not the exclusive mode that I use. Indeed, it would be maladaptive to replace banter with logic when talking with a girl. Hope that answers your question Nostromo.
Narmno, I’m not sure if you are trolling or not but I will assume you are real for the sake of discussion. By all means keep doing what you are doing that gets you these six figure opportunities but there is something “off” about you that is very repellent. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it is there. Now nearly everyone who ends up not only reading game blogs but commenting has unresolved issues so this is not meant to be insulting. I’d suggest figuring it out in some way perhaps by going well outside your comfort zone and messing up as you are afraid to do until you get it. I’ve found that is the best way to do anything.
Krauser PUA 
September 15, 2014 at 9:03 pm
Steve’s laughter when Nick describes the archetype of the ugly guy is priceless.
I bet Nick struggled to keep his composure.
Sound advice, be realistic, and take it step-by-step until you reach your optimum. I remember Nick drawing a Michelangelo-level chart about all this.
September 15, 2014 at 9:38 pm
So you’re saying you could judge a guy’s potential by taking a looking at a full body shot – assuming he has a good sense of game (1 year, thousand approaches), reasonable fashion, and no weird personality quirks? Or you could at least point out the range of girls he should focus on?
Say if I were to email you a pic, Krauser….because right now I get nothing despite loads of effort. Perhaps you could respond with a pic of a comparable girl (in your view) and a +1 girl/ -1 girl?
It can be hard to “see” yourself objectively and people too close to you hate giving bad news. [Ok. I’d advise you send the same details to Tom too, for a second opinion. K.]
September 16, 2014 at 3:19 am
I just messaged it out to you, K. Thanks for doing this. Regardless of your answer it should help me get one step closer to stumbling out of the dark.
September 16, 2014 at 12:59 pm
How do you know when you’ve tapped out your genetic potential with game?
I’m guessing it goes something like this:
Low skills, makes no epically huge mistakes but is mainly just working on volume of approaches: girls 1 / 2 points below him.
Moderate skills. Doesn’t really make mistakes, but at the same time doesn’t do anything massively special. Girls on his level / 1 point below.
High skills. Perfect game. Really captures the girls imagination. Perfect sub communications. Great inner game. Girls 1 / 2 points above him.
I’m guessing it’s probably impossible to get girls more than 2 points above you with any degree of regularity. [It’s an interesting point. I don’t yet know the answer. My results keep improving year-on-year, so I won’t know until I hit a plateau I can’t pass. Based on last time I saw you, I think your physical appearance is almost tapped-out at top potential so the bigger gains will be (i) inner game (ii) leaving London (iii) verbal game (iv) fine tuning aesthetic to better present the archetype you’re displaying. But in terms of raw value, you’ve already took your aesthetic near it’s max. K.]
September 16, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I’m trying to eradicate bullshit/sophistry from my life.
Krauser, two questions:
(a) What if we just killed the concept of phases? There are a lot of very fundamental themes in game: gender differences, social brainwashing, dating market value, etc. These are very important as they positively impact your planning/acting/evaluating/belief process. In the literature, there’s also front-and-center the concept of linear “phases” (e.g. your Daygame Model), but that one smells like bullshit.
Does an author think about the climax and denouement when writing a book? No, he’s thinking about the audience and the ebb and flow of tension. Does a player think “am I done with A2?” “am I in the comfort stage now?” No. He’s thinking heuristics like “always be escalating,” “avoid buyer’s remorse,” “make sure she’s hooked before talking less,” “draw out emotions a bit to build connection,” “keep track of how much value/comfort she feels,” “leave No girls alone,” etc. Indeed, as an exercise you can in your head derive the “most likely” sequence of phases once you’ve read the heuristics.
I think phases only hurt your game by clogging your mind. I don’t understand why sequencing is emphasized. To me it just seems like a silly little pattern fit imperfectly to the wealth of advice and stories we have in the literature. At best, maybe they’re a “check your work”: if your game doesn’t have these phases, you’re probably not getting younger, hotter, tighter. (Do you ever think about phases when YOU pick-up?)
(b) What if we killed the concept of internal/external referencing? I’ve heard it in two contexts, both bullshit, as far as i can tell:
(i) Balancing internal/external referencing in your own life– We’re all genetically designed to be externally referenced, it’s just a matter of timescale. So why not just think about your primal need for short-term validation balanced against the importance of developing good principles (through experience, reading, reflection, etc.) which deliver medium term happiness and future ego validation? Instant gratification vs delayed gratification, in other words. It’s bullshit to think “hmm… should I reference myself internally here or externally?” But it’s smart to think, “hmm.. short-term ego boost or the longer-term one?”
People who are too externally referenced: you have no principles.
People who are too internally referenced: you have messed-up principles. Get some short-term validation and maybe you’ll fix them up.
(ii) Judging how internally/externally referenced a girl is. You can use the dichotomy above, Or you can use the introverted/extroverted gradient. Internal vs external referencing seems a fuzzy, unnecessary combination.
Now, I’m a game amateur, so take these with a grain of salt. They were just two concepts my brain rejected. (Maybe I don’t have enough experience to understand them? Dunno.) [I wouldn’t go so far as to say you’re wrong, but you aren’t right either. I don’t think you understood the message of Daygame Mastery. K.]
September 16, 2014 at 11:33 pm
K, you’re correct as I hadn’t read the book.
I read a bit and immediately changed my mind on the phases thing. Hot girl on the street -> bang is remarkably repeatable. Nice model.
I now understand the marketing message about “this is for people doing dozens of cold approaches on the street.”
I guess it’s just a bonus that a large part of it is applicable to e.g. social circle game, which I think requires a bit of transformation the “daygame model”.
September 18, 2014 at 5:54 pm
Lessons:
(a) Read the book or the paper before interrogating.
(b) Risk-taking practitioners aren’t the ones full of bullshit.
(c) Repeatable tasks have clunky models. Less repeatable ones only heuristics.
(d) Be nice when criticizing a book author.
(e) Pick-up is scalable enough that phases are useful.
And I’ve yet to fully read the book.
Embarrassing yourself is the best way to learn. Thanks K!
September 16, 2014 at 5:17 pm
Temporarily changing locations showed me how much hotter I can get if I just moved.
Living in North America (with a couple exceptions ) is a huge downgrade to central and eastern europe.
My time in Poland I was turning away girls that I would have to work hard for in my home city. I felt the same about Berlin as well, having dark skin makes you pretty shiny to the girls there.
I bet for men who are North America based, the biggest result improvement will come from moving.
September 19, 2014 at 4:15 am
Exactly! Im not dark skinned but when I did a Balkans jaunt i couldn’t keep the girls from me! Compared to freaking NA where you either settle with an 8 or bang 6 on rotation. 6 disgust me so i had to forget my ego and settle for a LTR with an 8, which disgusted me at myself, trading my liberty for such weak comforts. Keep on killing it bro!
September 16, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Hey Krauser, great video as always.
You have stated this point a few times in your previous posts, I have to say your theory (or fact) makes sense but I wanna disagree and say that while looks ofcourse affect your game massively, but its still a game of compensation. The better looking you are, the less game you need and vice versa. If you are lets say below average on attractiveness, you can “compensate” that with a good level of game. My argument is, if for example we take “Tyler Durden the character as a demonstration, if he wasnt a young brad pitt looking guy and was instead a non good looking guy he would still be the same powerful leader.
I also think its unfair comparing getting good at “game” with getting good at a sport. Game is basically about social adaptiveness while running is a physical challenge. Women are attracted to power thats for sure. However power in the modern time comes in a social cunning form. you can always learn to be charming and work to improve on your charisma that one day you CAN be the Usian Bolt of game. Anyways I just wanted your thoughts about how genetics affect your status in the social heirarchy. [Getting laid is not about social adaptiveness. It’s about getting girls aroused and wanting to fuck, of which looking good is the single easiest way. Genetics also determines the limits to your IQ, temperament and social acuity which affect the quality of the game you can learn. K.]
September 16, 2014 at 7:39 pm
Miss the articles maaaan Lol
This archetype thing is interesting would love to read the classic krauser style breakdown of how to bring I out in yourself, or is it covered in depth on 1 of the books? Cheers anyway your The man.
September 19, 2014 at 4:11 am
Krauser, what do girls usually rate you as on the looks scale? Im just asking cause you have mentioned before that with some girls you feel like the good looking guy ( easy to escalate, dont fuck up game), and with others you have to work more. I get that not every girl will like you, but Im confused when say a serbian chick tells me I look very handsome, and a french who calls me plain, and a morrocan woman who calls me above average looks ar best. Have you encountered this in your game life, or do you always get told you look above average looking or ugly or plain? Btw did you watch Welcome to New York, they should have made a cameo of Jabba/Krauser?
September 19, 2014 at 8:21 am
1. girls mix up physical attractiveness with attractiveness
“Girls will often describe a physically unattractive but charismatic man who arouses them as “cute” because they don’t have the verbal tools to describe his mysterious allure in anything but herd-like universal terms of attraction. This is why you shouldn’t bother taking a girl’s words describing what turns her on at face value. “Cute” literally can mean a thousand different things to a girl if she likes a man enough.” http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/the-power-of-dread-game/
2. girls have different preferences, due to their masculinity/femininity
bloggers note eastern european girls are feminine (and thus prefer masculine guys a la K who can handle a challenge), western european girls masculine (and thus prefer “hot” guys)
so serbian girl maybe more feminine and likes pale, oldish, strong, wealthy-looking, common-sense guy more. maybe that’s you
3. Krauser has noted that of the girls in his ping range, some are “Yes girls” (and will of course say he looks young and hot), others are not (and I infer would say he’s plain and old)
4. if a girl says “plain” she’ll be more likely to think that in the future (consistency and commitment effect)
so a girl who says “plain” is artificially making it extra hard for you (assuming you have high value)
solution: show your value before she thinks “plain”
and when a girl says “hot” it helps her attraction for you (good girl!)
Would be interesting for K to comment more precisely– e.g. how many points a girl can vary in her preferences.
September 20, 2014 at 5:30 am
Narmno…you’re way too logical. I recommend choosing one product and learning from it combined with action. Daygame Mastery or Badass Buddha. BB has less info but forces you to get out of your head more.
September 20, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Xman, thx. These months I’m in college focused on getting a $400k first year job, so to keep my vibe good for job interviews I have to be low effort with my game, focusing on universal principles (social skills, etc.). If I go too much out of my comfort zone, I’ll mess up, and from experience it’s tough to do a good job interview if it’s a day after an ugly breakup.
So I’m low effort and less lay-focused (15hrs/week): lifestyle, networking with guys, chatting up girls if I see them and 45/min day reading game.
I think your advice to stop lazily reading blogs and focus more on books is good.
September 20, 2014 at 4:13 pm
“$400k first year job”? CS guys from the ivy leagues are making max $250k including stock options working at Facebook and the like, I-bankers from Ivies at bulge bracket firms are making at most $200k . What is your plan?
September 20, 2014 at 4:56 pm
All accurate figures there Nostromo. Indeed I have job offers for the $200k – $250k CS stuff. The CS/startups stuff sounds boring but it can be fun, because you can mix in your marketing/sales knowledge (related to game) for product ideas, your sociopathic social skills (related to game) to fit in and be well-liked, your logic/focus/theory knowledge (related to game) to code effectively. Then you outclass your peers and work on high-impact projects. So not bad at all, as long as you avoid the large places where you get into that dead-end.
$400k is for a high-end HFT job, requiring CS + math skills + work ethic (though a lot of HFT jobs pay only $150k-$250k first year). (And, sure, it’s more like $350k due to the way bonuses are vested.) But it increases to a couple million dollars after a couple years experience.
When choosing a focus between game and career, I’m reminded of Frost’s poem The Road Not Taken: maybe game LOOKS more appealing, but sometimes it’s smarter to follow the path set by your rich, intelligent elders.
I think Xman’s advice relates to the fact that you need focus to get better (you want to learn themes; you want ask “why”; you want to tie it into your life; you want to learn from experience to sniff out all the biases and all your weak points; you want experiential knowledge to get good expectations, instincts, etc.). So I appreciate his advice.
Finally, if I sound overly logical, I would say that that’s not the exclusive mode that I use. Indeed, it would be maladaptive to replace banter with logic when talking with a girl. Hope that answers your question Nostromo.
September 20, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Narmno, I’m not sure if you are trolling or not but I will assume you are real for the sake of discussion. By all means keep doing what you are doing that gets you these six figure opportunities but there is something “off” about you that is very repellent. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it is there. Now nearly everyone who ends up not only reading game blogs but commenting has unresolved issues so this is not meant to be insulting. I’d suggest figuring it out in some way perhaps by going well outside your comfort zone and messing up as you are afraid to do until you get it. I’ve found that is the best way to do anything.
September 20, 2014 at 6:15 pm
No worries, not an insult! In fact, love it 😀 If I met you in person we could have a god debate about it 🙂