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.
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.
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.
- Walk around looking good.
- Catch a huge number of approach invitations from girls between 1 and 3 points below you.
- Let the first ten IOIs pass because you still don’t like rejection or approaching.
- Open the most receptive-looking girl with a “hey”
- Stand smiling for a few seconds while she giggles, blushes and flutters her eyelashes.
- Give a direct compliment, so you feel like you’re doing real game. “You look pretty hot.”
- Inane chit-chat for a minute and take a number.
- Marvel at the low flake rate. Invite her out for a date the next night, at a bar next to your apartment.
- Turn up on date and don’t really think much about game. Just chat, and occasionally sit back and be quiet.
- Around 10pm say “lets go back to my place for some wine”. Girl enthusiastically agrees.
- 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.
- Walk around as if you’re invisible to women. Try to force IOIs and get blanked constantly
- Weasel the first few sets because you’re expecting blowouts or flat timewaster sets.
- Build up courage and throw yourself in there. The first few go nowhere but remind you it’s not so bad really.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Pretty soon I’ll be showing you (yes, show not tell) what normal-guy r-selected daygame looks like. Stay tuned.
October 17, 2014 at 1:20 pm
Nice. It’s true and while “self development” is often weaseling, I noticed significant increase in female interest after nose plastic surgery 3 years ago that took my innate defect from bad to not too bad. I believe minor plastic surgery to max out face, plus work in a gym and basic r-selected fashion are fantastic. Makes game so much easier. It’s still game but at least I get slight interest instead of eyeroll…my GLL game is not sufficient but I at least am considered a candidate in situations where I can display some personality. Then, well executed r-selected model is needed, with particular emphasis on those leaps of faith.
October 17, 2014 at 1:43 pm
I’d bet my right nut your results improved due to your improved self confidence as much as your improved nose.
October 17, 2014 at 3:20 pm
Of course, this is the case for everything. Physique changes improve posture, body language, self-perception, better reactions-you can aim higher and this becomes new normal…etc.
October 17, 2014 at 8:48 pm
Maybe your niptuck boosted your smv 4 points. But, if I had to guess what kind of posture, self perception etc, a person who decides they should risk disfigurement and death (a low but very real risk) in order to get girls had, I’d guess very poor.
Im curious was your nose seriously deformed in a medical sense, or did it just not look good.
October 17, 2014 at 6:18 pm
People can cry “placebo!” as much as they want but the fact remains that if Joe Average could turn his face from John C. Reilly’s to Zac Efron’s, his dick would be rewarded in short order.
Women can be just as shallow as us men. That comes from my experience watching and listening to two very attractive women I became friends with as they were approached both in and outside of clubs.
October 17, 2014 at 7:50 pm
>People can cry “placebo!” as much as they want but the fact remains that if Joe Average could turn his face from John C. Reilly’s to Zac Efron’s, his dick would be rewarded in short order.
Pretty much sums it up.
October 17, 2014 at 9:50 pm
Apollohaan…I didn’t have to pay for the surgery, because it was medical condition…4-time osteotomy was done. More work could be done but it’s realistically possible to move ony 1-2 points up the 5 point scale in case of this. So terrible could be bad-average after 2 excellent surgeries. And originally it was that bad people asked me very freqently about it and what I’m gonna do etc. They still ask now but it’s way less often.
October 20, 2014 at 2:39 am
In that case I could see how surgery can make a drastic difference.
October 17, 2014 at 1:43 pm
Thanks for this. So this is what I’ve been doing all these years.
October 17, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Wait you consider WIly Beck running good looking guy game? [Mostly, yes. K.]
October 17, 2014 at 2:18 pm
I think it should be pointed out the good looking guys are all NA based while all the normal mediocre looking puas are euro based.
Perhaps it’s more about playing the game for your environment. Roosh has said muscles don’t up SMV much in CE/EE. I can tell you with NA girls muscles will provide a substantial uptick in SMV. [I don’t have any problem with GLGG, unless its passed off as something else – which it frequently is. I’m inclined to agree that looks, especially muscles, is more important in the Anglosphere. You never see jacked guys in FSU with the hotties. K.]
October 17, 2014 at 3:02 pm
Europe works just the same. Paris for instance = London 5 years ago. Very few decent infields, most made by GLGs with muscles.
So while I agree with Krauser on the importance of discerning which type of game they’re using, we are still waiting for him to show us and those pretty boys how the game is really played. Not trolling, honestly curious about seeing his method in action in a long enough footage. [You won’t have to wait long. K.]
October 17, 2014 at 4:41 pm
I’ve never felt so proud of not having the best SMV than after reading this blog. =P
One thing that greatly improved my game was to listen to your old recorded sets against my recorded sets and try to find the intricacies and subtleties of game. It’s helped a ton.
Look forward in seeing your new product.
October 20, 2014 at 6:43 am
Where do you find Krauser’s recorded sets?
October 21, 2014 at 2:06 pm
Look through his old blog posts- he has a bunch.
From talking about Margarito to comparing a girl to a little animal. Good learning material here.
October 17, 2014 at 4:57 pm
Great article and very well thought out premise but I would add that I believe what these guys are doing is a subset of game. To a virgin who has little to no experience interacting with girls (higher or lower SMV than him) the easy mode is still more than most can imagine – and that even includes guys that are decent to better than average looking. There are still plenty of good looking guys that don’t know how to pull girls the same level or even 1-3 below themselves. A girl with a point or two below you also make for the most stable relationships according to Rollo – so I guess it depends on what your goals are. I’m still a huge fan of maximizing what you have going on. Getting to 10% body fat or lower can make a huge difference in your facial attractiveness. The higher your value, the higher you can shoot for anyway. Love your stuff and I’ve used it effectively before so keep up the good work! [Thanks. I have no problem with GLGG. Respect the hustle. Just call it what it is. K.]
October 17, 2014 at 7:25 pm
This infatuation with pickup is surpassing primal urges of sex and reveals nothing but weakness. Dependence on female love… I respect no man that derives every ounce of happiness and confidence in his self image from fucking London whores [I don’t need a faggot’s respect, thanks. K.]
October 17, 2014 at 8:47 pm
Having watched your infields, I will stipulate that your recorded accomplishments trump Willie’s. That being said, I say that most guys can still learn a lot from him. His looks and height buy him a warm first reaction, and perhaps a bit of her attention, maybe even glide him to the hook point. Then he is on the same footing as you are. True his ping range may be broader, but closing is closing and I know better looking guys then him who can’t do it. My best mate since high school has movie star grade looks and it doesn’t help him. The girls chase after him and love him at first, but at the end of the night they fuck some other guy, a guy who can close.
October 20, 2014 at 7:06 am
Your friend sounds like a nightgamer not a daygamer. If he gets a girl out on a day 2, just don’t take her to a meat market and she’s not going to leave him for someone else on a date.
October 17, 2014 at 9:08 pm
When you refer to spammers, aren’t they just playing the numbers game like everyone else? Or do you think that approach bots aren’t getting any bangs but are crowding the market place? [The latter. Spamming is just trying to find yes girls without using a trace of skill, usually when you have a narrow ping range. K.]
October 17, 2014 at 9:23 pm
Would you consider RSD Tylers game as a high energy version of normal looking guy r selected nightgame? [I haven’t seen him in person. My guess is he uses momentum to build state and spams until he finds a good hook. This is because he has a narrow ping range. Once he’s hooked, it’s game on and the skill comes out. K.]
October 17, 2014 at 11:25 pm
this why its good to get yourself rated online and once you know get your bangs rated. thatll tell whats up with your game at the time. if they rate less you were coasting if there hotter then it just shoes how good your game is.
October 18, 2014 at 12:53 am
This is actually quite funny. When you listed the steps to GLLG as you call it, I’ve literally done the same thing countless times. I really can’t argue with you whatsoever on this. I would say you slightly exaggerated, but not by much. I literally think very little. I admit that I’m horrible “game wise” though. To be honest though, I had WORSE results when I was using “game”.
I’ve seriously had borderline retarded conversations with women before and had sex with them. No joke. I talked to a girl about going on a vacation to the US before. Another girl was a dental student and we were talking about teeth. I did no qualifying, push/pull anything like that and both were super eager to sleep with me. Glad you found something that works. Who knows? Maybe my luck will run out as I get older?
October 18, 2014 at 12:55 am
Everybody with social experience who is not above average knows when a girl want to fuck a guy, the isn’t much wrong he can do or say.
That how GLGG is.
Looks do matter to women, a lot. On top they will always look for reasons/excuses to say no.
And so the mind needs massaging (game) to make up for the less eye candy.
October 18, 2014 at 1:09 am
This is quite funny lol. I’ve literally done GLGG, as you call in those exact steps multiple times before.(more or less anyways. You did slightly exaggerate, but not by much.) I’ve even had borderline retarded conversation with girls before that lead to lays. eg. talking about weather in the US, teeth (she was a dental student)
I admit “game wise” I’m HORRIBLE! I do like nothing “right”. I actually did worse with “game”. I understand it quite well too. Just too many steps imo. If game works for you, then all the best. I’m 29 too so maybe that helps? I’m not that young though
October 18, 2014 at 3:12 am
I think GLGG may work on a certain type of girl just like provider game would work on a certain type of girl. All you really have to do is show up, buy drinks, try to DHV the girl. I saw this in action last night. Rich dude trying to game girl but not really being either clear in his intent nor confident in his delivery. But the girl was mildly flattered and somewhat intrigued by the attention. It was k-selected provider game. I could smell the thirst off the guy. But women do give numbers and feel “safe” with dudes like this. They do get girls so it could work.
In my case, I’ve made a clear shift in the last 9 months to r-selected game for girls I want to game.
But it can be…messy.
Sparking attraction in women elicits a variety of responses: some women just go with the flow and it’s easy. Others shit-test and the attraction sparks that fore-brain/hindbrain conflict making them giggle and sabotage the whole interaction.
A lot of r-selected game is like driving a car on an icy mountain road—-too fast and you crash, too slow and you don’t move anywhere and spin your wheels….
October 18, 2014 at 5:23 am
Berba talks the talk but when he tries to walk the walk it looks like he is always on the defensive and just bad everything. I am not hating this man because he is trying, but I dislike that he talks one thing and does acts another when approaching or on dates. It is almost like he ignores feedback or doesn’t take his own advice, which is actually good advice, but his game sucks imo–everything is forced and bad.
Looking froward to your infields krauser. The beauty of game is the pulling of girls above your caliber in looks. I am glad you are honest and made that distinction.
Btw, remember when you critiqued vince kelvin? Notice how he disappeared off the map soon after that? Coincidence?
October 18, 2014 at 9:47 am
+++ 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.
Because what turns a woman on most is a man out of her league, a man who could get laid with hotter women than herself, and thus she wants to get to his cock as fast as possible. I reckon that hypergamy is relative and not absolute: that is women don’t aim for the men with top 10% in SMV, but for men with a signicantly higher SMV than theirs.
Put another way, women “have chemistry with” men more popular than they are, men therefore who can hardly be bothered to fuck them. In other words I sort of believe in the general logic of this table:
Keeping in mind that a man’s SMV is made of both attitude and looks (proxies for the reproductive potential or their future sons), and a woman’s SMV almost entirely of her looks (as a proxy for her fertility).
+++ They are failing the younger-hotter-tighter test.
“2 SMV difference theory” explains this well in the example you make: if you are looking at videos of on-the-street pulls, then the successful ones are likely to be the ones where the woman is eager to get pulled, and that depends largely on her “OMG a guy out of my league finally trying to chat me up!” gina tingling feeling. Especially on a cold approach where the first impression is looks (as well as the attitude in the “Hey!”).
+++ And that’s a big failing. The whole point of Game is to score
+++ girls younger and hotter than you.
Yes and no. The whole point of Game is just to get laid, at least at the beginning, without slumming it out.
More precisely Game is targeted at getting laid by turning on women, that is by becoming sexually desirable to women, rather than paying for it directly or indirectly by some form or another of being a beta “sugar daddy”.
Suppose that the table above is true, and “chemistry” for a woman means having a chance to fuck a man 2 SMV above hers. She will also willingly fuck a man 1 SMV above hers but will be ambivalent about it.
Game is essentially the idea that to be desired by women in his current *looks* league a guy needs to gain 2 SMVs, and Game usually means therefore:
* Gain 1 SMV by becoming better looking: a slimmer, tougher body, plus better dress and hairstyle.
* Gain 1 SMV by getting a more attractive attitude, which means a bit more sociopathic, a bit funnier, a bit more selfish, a lot more confident (“amused mastery”, “uncaring asshole” as Heartiste puts it).
The ways to enjoy that 2 SMV difference are both valid: get laid with many women 2 SMV below or a few 1 SMV below.
Let’s make an example: suppose a man is currently a 6 SMV (looks only, because being a quasi-beta means no attitude points). He can get fairly easily laid with 4 SMV women, but that’s slumming, and can perhaps with a some effort get laid sometimes with a 5 SMV woman, but he has virtually no chances of getting laid with a 6 SMV woman, unless he puts on the table non-sexual assets like being rich and willing to get married or some other form of being a beta “sugar daddy”; because women don’t have sex with men with whom they have no “chemistry” unless they need and get something else from them.
With Game he can get to be 8 SMV (of which 7 SMV are for looks), and therefore either go for quantity with 6 SMV girls that would previously not be attracted to him at all, or for quality (by investing more effort) with a smaller number of 7 SMV women who considered him a creep when he was 6 SMV.
Both are valid choices!
Perhaps KrauserPUA’s argument is that a man can gain 2 SMV *entirely* by a more attractive attitude, without improving his looks, that is a 6 SMV man can remain a 6 SMV man as to looks but be perceived as 8 SMV by developing an extra hard attitude; therefore getting laid with a bit of effort with women of 7 SMV in looks while himself reamining 6 SMV in looks thanks to the extra 2 SMV gained from the right “gina-tingling” attitude.
This is entirely possible! But from what I have seen this is not desirable for most men, because:
* Improved looks are much better openers being more immediately visible than attitude.
* A 2 SMV gain just in attitude means, given that women are sexually attracted by lack of caring and by assholery, becoming less suitable for dealing with people in general, that is for teamwork, and that can impact work success. Most men have to work in environments where only collective effort brings home the bacon, and it is difficult to have one attitude at work and another with women.
+++ 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.
That’s not a fair description. If a Game turns a 6 SMV man into an 8 SMV man, he can pull then pull 6 SMV girls that he would have had to offer to be a beta “sugar daddy” previously and still get laid only rarely with.
So I think that for my example of a former 6 SMV guy becoming 8 SMV thanks to Game it makes an enormous difference between:
A: getting during his life 1-2 “girlfriends” of 6 SMV by effectively promising marriage and being cheated on when they have a chance to throw themselves at an 8 SMV man
B: being the 8 SMV man the 6 SMV girlfriends eagerly cheat their “sugar daddy” beta boyfriends with, plus having a good chance of getting laid with 7 SMV women with a bit more effort.
October 20, 2014 at 6:52 am
Very thorough response to this article!
October 18, 2014 at 10:06 am
BTW on looks and attractiveness some fascinating reports from the founder of OKCupid:
Important side note: my impression is that when women rate a man’s photo on a dating site they don’t rate his *looks* but his *sexiness*, while men mostly rate just the looks (because for men a woman’s look and sexiness are largely the same).
There are notable experiments of psychologists that show that women rate the same photos of men differently depending on the phase of their cycle, and others that show that women can infer correctly (to a degree) a man’s “attitude” from photos.
October 18, 2014 at 12:06 pm
OT. In The Sun today thwy have a feature about a wannabe WAG. She talks about the 1/4 mill she’s spent on surgery, going to posh clubs etc… Thus far she has been unsuccessful getting a prem footballer.
The last quote is the killer. The woman is 29 and says “If I haven’t found a foitballer by the time I’m 40, I’ll give up.” Very good luck, sweetheart, hope you meet Kanye West!
October 18, 2014 at 12:08 pm
As to “Women can be just as shallow as us men” that’s also both true and wrong, because it impossible to understand women’s sexual attitudes without distinguishing between attractive and unattractive men.
Women are shallow (and sexually aggressive, etc.) only with *attractive* men. Because women don’t consider *unattractive* men at all as “men”, in a sexual sense. They consider them at best as sugar daddies and at worst as disgusting threats.
The average beta man who expresses some sexual interest in a woman makes her feel like a fat smelly transvestite queer would make a straight man feel when trying to snog him by telling him that he is a pretty boy. Simply not the right gender, not shallowness.
Since most men are unattractive betas, they never see the shallow, sexually aggressive side of women, except perhaps when they are in the company of an attractive alpha, and then they blot it out. Because for the 80% of men who are unattractive betas to realize that women don’t consider them as men in a sexual sense, but as disposable or repulsive drones, it just too hard.
October 18, 2014 at 12:43 pm
While I agree wholeheartedly with the article, I still think too many guys are brainwashed by the pick up marketing ploy that looks are completely irrelevant, which I think is where the problem lies more deeply. It shocks me how many guys are willing to spend hundreds on bootcamps and products, yet seeming refuse to put time and effort into their looks. I often see these spam approachers you talk about who would be able to quote game theory until the cows come home but haven’t had a smart haircut or fashion upgrade in a decade.
Sure, you can’t change some things but a lot of these guys are refusing to do anything; why isn’t the small anorexic guy using heightening insoles and killing the gym? Why isn’t the indian geek getting rid of his greasy hair and ditching the nerdy glasses? A lot of guys need to be brutally honest with themselves and ask ‘how can I significantly improve my looks?’ I strongly believe you can change a lot more than you think.
I personally think a large portion of it comes down to laziness; why spend hours in the gym, months trying different hair / beard styles, money on fashionable clothes when you can just buy a DG product and spam approach. After all, as everyone says… looks don’t matter!
October 18, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Some random thoughts…. so I hope this doesn’t come across as arrogant. This is from a good looking guy who takes his daygame very seriously. I am a big fan of both yours and Toms.
I entirely agree with the article and it’s laugh out load how relevant the first example is to when I only did night game (although it wasn’t really game back then, I was just going out to get laid). I’d prop myself up against the bar and basically wait for girls to approach me. I would never do any of the hard work. My friends thought I was a player… I thought I was a player!
FAst forward 10 years and banging alot of average girls I felt entirely unsatisfied. I wanted the super hot girl that would never approach me. I thought she was was too high value. I had never been rejected in my life. I wasn’t going to approach as I didn’t really no how to handle these types of girls. (3 months in Moscow fixed this problem).
As I have gotten older I can no longer tolerate the club scene. This is when I realised the only way I was going to be able to have a crack at these girls was on the street. A daunting prospect for someone who has never needed to work for his dinner or felt the sting of rejection.
Fast forward 5 years of daygaming EE and London I have discovered 2 main obstacles that arise when you are a good looking man.
The first obstacle of a good looking daygamer is finding an actual target that is of equal or better looking than yourself. I have done 8 hour days and not approached. This is cripling when you are trying to find flow and get outside of your head.You start to question if you are coming up with excuses not to approach, and when you finally make yourself go in, you politely eject because she has a weird smile or slightly thick ankles.
I can roughly average one solid number per 10 approaches. My goal is 30 approaches per month. Im out 4 times a week doing this. I will probably sleep with 1 new girl a month. Thats a lot of work and time spent to sleep with 1 high value women.
I see guys wondering around approaching anything that moves on Oxford street. Good game or not, they are getting laid way more than I am with girls that are still of equal or higher value than them.
The second obstacle faced by the good looking daygamer is approaching seriously high value girls is much much harder than approaching ‘cute’ tourists wondering around London looking lost. The blow outs are going to be harder and faster (good-looking or not). Ego crushing rejections are hard to come to terms with when you have only ever had it so easy. Most guys in the PUA scene are starting from a mental state of 0 then working your way up to a 10. What an achievement! Now imagine having a the mental state of a disillusioned 10, then hitting rock bottom and having to bitterly climb your way back up to 10 – the right way. It’s relative to a degree but its a different kind of journey.
Without all the content out there available I wouldn’t have been able to do any of this so I have huge respect for anyone putting themselves out there and showing us how they do things. I have actually found the proper car crash PUAS quite helpful in teaching me what not to do. Watching a wide range of infields and reading various material has enabled me to create my own unique approach system and formula. [Good comment. For normal men, it sounds like you have First World Problems, but I appreciate that satisfaction is relative to expectations and prior experience so it’s a real issue for you. Props for going after the top tier. K.]
October 20, 2014 at 7:12 am
I don’t understand this one part in your post, “I see guys wondering around approaching anything that moves on Oxford street. Good game or not, they are getting laid way more than I am with girls that are still of equal or higher value than them.”
Are you saying they’re approaching war pigs and battle toads…and getting laid?
But then you followed that with, “Good game or not, they’re getting laid way more than I am with girls that are of equal or higher value than them.”
So that sounds like you were saying those guys who approached battle toads were doing better than you….’good game or not.’ I don’t get it.
October 20, 2014 at 8:38 am
As a good looking guy your standards have to be much higher to get hotter than you, so the targets are going to be tougher for many reasons, irrespective if you are David Gandy of not. If I was say a 6 in looks and approached a bunch of 7’s I am going to get far better results than being an 8 approaching a load of 9’s.
October 20, 2014 at 9:29 am
I spoke to a friend about this who’s also a very good looking guy who just this year alone has banged about 20 girls, and all without doing a single daygame approach..
His advice about getting true 8’s and above is that daygame alone isn’t enough if you want to score a girl of that high quality, regardless of how good looking you are.
That’s not to say it’s not possible or that daygame won’t help you achieve it. But if we’re to assume that an 8 and above refers to her feminine character and personality as well as her beauty, then it will be a real shame to simply game her verbally, fuck her and then not have the lifestyle (K-Selection) to back it up in order to keep her around, which i’m assuming a lot of guys want and why they came into the community.
From his experience, girls of that calibre need substance or in other words, things that you don’t communicate verbally that they demand to see by watching how you live your life and how others treat you. Otherwise, they’ll simply call you out as being full of shit.
It’s happened to another friend of mine a few times who was with a 9 for about 3 months before it all fell apart. He talked a good talk but in the end couldn’t keep up appearances long enough to keep it going.
Most girls of that quality will have already been approached by the best naturals and PUAs and simply demand more from the men they’re dating.
October 18, 2014 at 3:47 pm
I often compare GLGG to someone who gets free vouchers to McDonalds and goes there because it’s cheap food and doesn’t need to go to better restaurants due to his stomach being full.
Its a shame because being comfortable and ‘happy’ with what you’re getting makes it difficult to want to push for higher.
I often always advise everyone who comes to me for advice about game, to go out and figure out what their ‘base level’ is. And by base level, I mean the quality of girl you’re able to pull without having to game. Once you’ve found it through going out and bedding a few girls easily, then you can work your way up and actually ‘acquire’ the skill set. Otherwise, as Nick said, it is not Game.
Resting on your laurels is very destructive because you’re not developing any lasting skill with what you’re doing that the normal guys have to work on. In other words, if you want to get good with anything.always strive to punch above your weight class.
October 18, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Krauser would you say GLGG has the same effect outside of North America? I know it sure works well in Canada and America. Probably even better in America. I’m not that tall though, only 6ft. So not sure if I use GLGG? I don’t really do much though, compliment, small talk, number close. [Good looks help everywhere but the further east, the less decisive they are. K.]
October 20, 2014 at 7:20 am
6ft is tall, Mitchel. 5’9.5 is the USA national average for men and 5’6″ is the average for USA women.
You’re 2.5 inches taller than most men, and you’re a full 6″ taller than most women.
I’m 5’7″. That’s short. I do well though, and usually I wear 2″ flip flop heels inside my boots
(I bought men’s shoes 2 sizes too large for me…then I inserted ‘high-heel women’s flip flops’ inside the boots).
That makes me about average height.
I haven’t noticed a significant improvement in my pulls though, which doesn’t make sense.
Sometimes when I’m feeling like I own the planet, I can be barefoot and pull like Sean Penn.
Anyway, my point is that you are tall. I’d give my right hand to be 6 feet tall (well…maybe my left hand. I use my right hand for fingering).
October 18, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Look forward to the future infield content
October 19, 2014 at 2:42 am
Walawala the assumption in the manosphere is that having money must be provider game.
This is like saying all good looking people are dumb as rocks.
Money game is the BEST adventure game if you have it.
“Let’s go for a ride on my yacht, he city looks awesome from out the bay”
“I’m flying to xyz for the day tomorrow, come with me”
“Have you ever been in a chopper”
“My NY penthouse has such a great view and a hot tub on the roof top”
And it plays right into the concept of hypergamy because most pretty chicks think they are entitled to it.
Just like the top 5% in looks, the top 5% in money is a game that few get a look into.
Whatnews in theory yes with game a 6 SMV may be able to have sex or even girlfriend a an 8 SMV but the causes are:
– 1000 rejections later
– Very unlikely she would stay long because eventually most women want better.
The exceptions being drug dealer/criminal, fame which does not come under “normal” or “average”.
So I agree with Onder’s approach (and most of what Krauser posts).
October 20, 2014 at 7:25 am
I think you meant, “Very unlikely she would [NOT] stay long because eventually most women want better.”
Also, Paul Janka teaches guys his “system” of getting laid.
Problem is, Paul Janka looks like a GQ model and lives in a NY penthouse in the richest part of Manhattan.
Maybe that’s why his opener is, “Excuse me, do you know where the nearest Starbucks is?”
He actually teaches good information if you ignore everything he says concerning “attraction,”
and pay attention only to what he says about logistics and maybe comfort.
October 21, 2014 at 3:53 am
Janka was as handsome as a GQ model and he was close to 6’1″ tall. But he did not live in a NYC penthouse. He lived in a ridiculously small apartment with a bunk bed you had to climb up to. He had no money game whatsoever. He made money later at the end of his great run in Manhattan.
October 19, 2014 at 8:42 am
Have you heard of any daygamers who are downright fugly? Like an older Steve Buschemi fugly?
Personally I feel in my element once the date is set up, for instance through online dating, but cracking the barrier in shopping malls or on the street is indeed a huge challenge.
Your efforts and success are genuinely heroic.
October 20, 2014 at 7:34 am
Yad when he started out. He’s still not good-looking, but apparently Yad was fatter and had bleeding acne when he was pounding the streets.
Also Tom Torero comes to mind.
But both Yad and Tom (and Matrix) have taken steps to improve their looks. For example, they recommend accutane.
Yad said in Daygame Domination that changing his looks for the better didn’t have any noticeable effect on his stats/game…
but I suspect that’s because he’s not gaming American women.
Also, you can even look at early photos of Matador and Gambler. They were pretty ugly (especially Gamber, aka Richard de LaRuina).
Gambler has one of those faces with extreme features…so he on a knife-edge between really ugly or really damned attractive.
So when Gambler was, I dunno when that photo was taken…maybe 17 or 19, he was downright fugly.
But he grew his hair out and managed his hair and skin well, and worked on this body language (his walk, and his nervous ticks),
and now you’d almost think his success is due to his looks.
When you watch Yad in field, you’ll notice he often gets rejected based on his looks (I’m guessing) MULTIPLE times…
it happens so fast that you might miss it. But then after several minutes the girl ends up investing in him and giving him her #.
Oh, it just occurred to me. Johnny Berba has a ton of fugly potential. Dress him up like Buscemi and I’m sure you’ll agree that they are about equally ugly.
But Berba combs his hair and wears a leather jacket, so although his ping rate is narrow (because of his looks), he still plows through (because of his look).
October 19, 2014 at 8:47 am
Oh, and I have to say that it’s quite annoying when top of the line handsome guys proclaim that it’s all about confidence.
If only they could spend one day in my shoes.
October 19, 2014 at 9:05 am
whatnews said “rather than paying for it directly or indirectly by some form or another of being a beta “sugar daddy”.”
Hey, don’t assume that sugar daddy game MUST be beta. Are you aware that for many women, the very ability to pull that game is an indicator of a higher value man? I know it’s very difficult for men to empathize with; we are not able to be more attracted to rich women, and so have no empathy for the fact that women actually mix up wealth with overall mate value.
October 19, 2014 at 9:11 am
Oh, and it’s not a contentious idea at all. There is science to back it up. Show women a picture of a man and measure her vaginal blood flow and moisture and ask her how attractive he is. Then show the same picture with the backstory that he is wealthy. There is a measurable difference, and variables such as confidence and all else are weeded out of the experiment.
For women money is tits. It doesn’t work that way for men, and we have an important ego investment in retaining our confidence, despite our circumstances, but the science doesn’t lie. Money is not only a beta fallback maneover; it can be used as one tool of a mans value, very similar to using looks.
October 20, 2014 at 7:39 am
I remember seeing that on the Sex Appeal documentary.
Women are shown photos of men, with little stats in text under the photo: “6ft, Music Producer, $400K/yr, Gemini, likes dogs”
When the ugliest ginger is shown with the above text ($400K), women say, “Oh, he’s cute. I like his features…”
But when there is no text, the same ginger gets the lowest rating.
However, I don’t understand then the R-selected fashion compared with provider style fashion.
Should I dress like an unemployed scumbag loser with tattoos, or should I dress in an expensive suit??
October 19, 2014 at 9:28 am
“Women are shallow (and sexually aggressive, etc.) only with *attractive* men. Because women don’t consider *unattractive* men at all as “men”, in a sexual sense. They consider them at best as sugar daddies and at worst as disgusting threats.”
I’m a physically unnatractive man. Noticeably so. I’m not just not handsome, I’m actually unattractive, to the point that it stands out as a noticeable feature.
And yet in my life I do get extreme cock hunger from girls who are above average all the way up to super hot. And that happens year after year, and is not random lottery winnings.
I think it’s too easy to lump ideas together. Especially ideas such as “sugar daddy” with beta. And ugly with beta. An ugly sugar daddy can get a womans a game. And maintain it. Even with multiple women.
It can be done, and I know that from experience.
October 20, 2014 at 7:43 am
Please tell me how you get super hot girls, year after year, when you are unattractive.
I am fairly attractive, and I don’t get super-hot girls year after year.
I’ve gotten only 3 or 4 super-hot girls over the latest 14 years (though I’ve fucked 83 girls total).
October 20, 2014 at 9:31 am
I’m in SEA, for one thing. But that’s not all of it, I’ve dated a few super hotties in the west too.
But context matters a lot.
Physicality is very important to me. I could never stress that enough. VERY important. And since it means so much to me, I do what it takes.
And once I do find a girl that pushes my buttons, then I’m on. It’s just a series of flow moments from then on, day after day, even year after year.
But I’ve often compromised in other areas; it’s easier to date hottie airheads than hot smart chicks. Because an airhead has lower sexual market value. Top shelf girls are debutantes, and they can afford to hold out to marry top shelf men.
So my strategy has been to do everything possible to:
1) increase my relative personal value by
a) putting myself into contexts where i have more relative value
b) becoming more fit, richer, skilled
c) have alpha leader status in my domain – the more underlings and the higher their status the better
2) increase my social access
October 19, 2014 at 11:31 am
You mentioned in the article that looks include height, physique and facial structure. I”m curious what percentage you would assign each?
October 20, 2014 at 7:47 am
3. Facial Structure
(Full disclosure: I’m a good-looking short guy)
I remember watching a talk show and a row of women were asked which was most important…
the attractiveness of a man’s body or face.
They ALL said body. Not that women ever knew what they responded to.
October 21, 2014 at 4:05 am
I would say facial structure comes first but it can be undermined if you are very short. I’ve seen short pretty boys clean up far better than tall mediocre looking guys. However combine height (6’1″ to 6’4″ Goldilocks zone or 186 to 193 cm) and facial handsomeness and you’ve given a man a tremendous advantage in the mating market. That man chose his parents well. I’m no Rawlsean but I can sometimes understand the emotions behind the “veil of ignorance” argument even if I hate Leftism.
October 21, 2014 at 9:24 pm
+++ a row of women were asked which was most important… the attractiveness
+++ of a man’s body or face. They ALL said body.
As usual what women say is not reliable. Often they reply as to what the *like*, which is irrelevant, because what matters is what *turns them on*. Indeed as a rule the two things are rather distinct and can be opposites. For example many women really *like* their male gay friends, because they are very nice “girlfriends” to have for a woman, but also precisely because of that they are not turned on by them. And they may really be turned on by men they quite dislike because they are rough and uncaring and assholish players.
+++ facial structure comes first but it can be undermined if you are very short.
+++ I’ve seen short pretty boys clean up far better than tall mediocre looking guys
This is a better story than the first because it is based on observing who gets laid, not what women say they *like*. But I disagree with it, while I agree with the former. In my experience once a man has a non-repulsive face what really matters for turning on women is the body and in particular height.
If cute short guys get laid I suspect it is more because (maybe it is a stereotype) cute short guys tend to have a sexy attitude, being cheekily assholish, and then being cute overcomes the lack of height, and the gina then can tingle.
October 19, 2014 at 12:45 pm
«Women are shallow (and sexually aggressive, etc.) only with *attractive* men. Because women don’t consider *unattractive* men at all as “men”, in a sexual sense. They consider them at best as sugar daddies and at worst as disgusting threats.”
I’m a physically unnatractive man. [ … ] I do get extreme cock hunger from girls who are above average all the way up to super hot»
Sure, and I also wrote:
«Keeping in mind that a man’s SMV is made of both attitude and looks (proxies for the reproductive potential or their future sons), and a woman’s SMV almost entirely of her looks»
and that Game involves gaining SMV but both improving looks and attitude:
«Gain 1 SMV by becoming better looking [ … ] Gain 1 SMV by getting a more attractive attitude,»
and that it is also possible to gain SMV entirely by attitude:
«a man can gain 2 SMV *entirely* by a more attractive attitude, without improving his looks, that is a 6 SMV man can remain a 6 SMV man as to looks but be perceived as 8 SMV by developing an extra hard attitude;»
It also possible to gain more than 2 SMV by Game, either with a combination of looks and attitude or even just attitude (a gain just by improved looks is not Game and anyhow does not give much).
But I was talking about typical cases: most current betas both have uninspiring looks and creepy (to women) attitudes.
Also most typical reforming betas don’t have the time/energy to improve more than 2 SMV.or to chase higher value women by investing more effort, as described in this realistic report:
«I can roughly average one solid number per 10 approaches. My goal is 30 approaches per month. Im out 4 times a week doing this. I will probably sleep with 1 new girl a month. Thats a lot of work and time spent to sleep with 1 high value women»
While for example by targeting women in your own league (that is women that consider you to have 1-2 SMV more than they have) the success rate if much much higher (as much as 30-50%.
And that’s what most guys want: they are perfectly happy to limit their success to going from:
a: from a man whom women find sexually repulsive and considers himself lucky if he has a fuckable girlfriend and to have sex with her sometimes, and to be desperate to keep her,
b: to one who has the option of having a girlfriend that is in his same (from his, not her, point of view) and keen to fuck him and please him, with the option of switching to fuckbuddies or another girlfriend if she becomes less eager.
Many men who are currently betas can just spare the effort and focus to go from beta to greater beta or ideally lesser alpha. Or if they are already natural lesser alphas to focus on it.
Then there are people like Krauser (self described average guy in other respects), or like you (overcoming a looks disadvantage) who have the energy and willpower to build themselves the opportunity to do better than that, or like MAG who have a looks advantage and yet strive to overcome that too. This is quite admirable, and you make happy many women who finally get the fuck they have always dreamed of, but that level of investment is not for most men.
October 19, 2014 at 3:06 pm
All good stuff. There are a whole bunch of variables we could add in there that add value to the man. And anything valuable is only valuable to someone, and different women will have different things they value. Some women for instance will put more value on money than many men are comfortable with.
October 19, 2014 at 12:55 pm
+++ height, physique and facial structure. I”m curious what percentage
+++ you would assign each?
That is such a nerdy, aspergery question… It depends on circumstances, culture, etc. and you have to “calibrate” your Game according to experience and developed instinct.
However various experiments by psychologists have tried to assign *some* weights, and my impression is that by far the most important is height, at least in “western” cultures.
Because a man’s height strongly correlates with protein and health during a child’s growth phase, and that correlates fairly strong with the success (wealth, power) of the man’s father.
And what women want, the question to which Freud could not find or did not want to give an answer, is something simple: strong, attractive sons who give them a lot of grandchildren by outplaying (and outcuckolding) other women’s sons, and women instinctively think that a lot of that is inheritable, so they want a father for their children that has the same characteristics, and ideally his father had the same too.
October 19, 2014 at 1:08 pm
+++ Hey, don’t assume that sugar daddy game MUST be beta
Hey, don’t assume that because the only game a beta can do is “sugar daddy” game, only betas can do that game.
Yes, alphas can do “sugar daddy” game too, and often do, as an extra tool. But it is overall a secondary too, because usually it can only enhance attractiveness, not establish it. Otherwise the wives of rich and powerful betas wouldn;’t be cheating on them with hot, asshole ski instructors and personal trainers. Even taking into account that 5 minutes of next alphas are better than 5 minutes of previous alpha.
October 19, 2014 at 3:03 pm
Ya. After you’ve fucked a first date, and have her interested, an offer of an apartment and all expenses is not a bad rabbit to have in your hat.
October 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm
Im curious how you would rate willy beck against good looking loser, with how much game each have and how good looking they are, because i don’t really consider willy beck good looking and i’ve heard from other guys including tom that hes got good game. Not saying good looking loser doesn’t have game but he definitely puts his looks to good use [The Beck videos I’ve seen he’s doing things you can only get away with if you’re good-looking, such as five-second kisses. He’s probably pretty good at game too, just the crazy stuff is trading on his looks esp. his height and age. K.]
October 21, 2014 at 4:22 am
Willy Beck is about a 7-7.5 in the face at around 6’2″ with some muscle. He’s not Paul Janka thin but he’s not Matador big. Chris from GLL is about an 8.5 in the face at 6’2.5″ with a steroid assisted physique. (He lost alot of his hair because of steroid abuse when younger.) However Chris doesn’t believe in using Game tactics. He’s all about using small talk combined with physical escalation and killer instinct. Beck on the other hand does have game knowledge. If you watch Beck’s videos you can tell he’s borrowing *heavily* from RSD. He’s basically offering the same thing that RSD gives in their videos. He even uses the “just 2 seconds” line to move the girl after opening (Owens’s line originally now taught to seemingly half the planet). So I would say that Beck is a PUA while Chris is a good looking player who has basically taught himself gook looking natural game. Beck is offering some tactical knowledge. Chris not so much. GLL’s approach is basically for above average looking North American men with good muscle mass under the age of about 34. Beck is still within the PUA universe. Both are entirely different from Jabba’s style of good looking, highly sexual game. As usual the European has more style.
October 22, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Strange. I find it the other way around with regards to Beck and GGL. Beck is slightly Brad Pittish, GLL is a 7 straight up meathead looking.
October 19, 2014 at 7:19 pm
Krauser, you’re not the first to have a go at the Berbanator. He comes across as overly simplistic and most of the girls he pulls don’t real hook properly and aren’t younger-hotter-tighter
October 22, 2014 at 4:23 pm
Wonder if you have any thoughts on Honest Signalz and if you still doubt GLL daygame vid (which he deleted) [I have my private opinion on that video which I shall keep private. K.]
October 26, 2014 at 6:23 am
Yes looks matter A LOT to women and always have. A fact the Manosphere is resistant to accepting, despite PUAs trying to school them for years.
Krauser, I read that all infield videos are pre-planned and staged by necessity because legally you have to get consent from video participants in order to 1. video tape them to begin with and, 2. publish the videos on the internet
October 30, 2014 at 12:35 am
What you describe (“normal man trying r-selected daygame”) is just that : a girl doesn’t like you and you try to convince her to like you.
No thanks. I prefer to slap these bitches. I already went on too much of these fucking dates.
“Good-looking guy game” is just : only talk to girls that are interested in you. And no you don’t have to be super looking male model to have girls like you. You should rename it : “common sense game”. No girl ever liked me just for my looks. If she couldn’t bear my personality I never got laid with her.
If you have to struggle to get laid, sorry but you have a problem. Getting laid is always smooth and agreeable because it takes 2 to tango : the girl likes you and you like the girl.
Yes, I usually get NO LMR because the girl likes me. Just common sense. [TLDR: “I fuck girls 2 points below my potential” K.]
March 20, 2015 at 12:11 pm
I wonder if Krauser could transfer his mind into the body of young good looking dude like that boytoy guy, would his results improve significantly? [I’d be stealing birds off DiCaprio. L.]
November 2, 2015 at 4:08 am
This is wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin with. Yes, Willy Beck is probably a male 8 on looks, while Krauser is a 6. Big deal, Willy’s got a wider pinging range. So what? That does not change the fact that he escalates way better than Krauser will ever do. Just like Steve Jabba Does. While Krauser is still doing the “stack” and the teasing, Beck is already fingering the girl (not really, but you get an idea). The more you postpone physical escalation, the harder it is to get the girl. I’m not the one discovering this truth. 60 years of challenge clearly explained that many years ago and I find it amusing that we are still discussing about looks, as another excuse to avoid fast escalation.
Krauser, you are not losing a few girls because you are bald. You are losing them because you are operating from the arbitrary assumption that they won’t like you unless you qualify yourself with some words, and as a consequence you can’t just grab her and kiss her like me, Willy and Steve would do in most cases. Compared to Willy and Tyler, which are like escalation-snakes, you look almost robotic. Yep, Beck and Jabba are better looking than you, so they get more IOI but they still have to go through the pain of flakes and lukeworm leads that you described in “the normal man trying r-selected daygame” list. There is no such thing as a “good looking guy” game.
In fact, there are only 2 types of players (I won’t even consider people who can’t open, as they are not relevant to this topic):
– Guys who can escalate FAST (hands caressing-kiss close in less than 5 minutes from opening): steve, Tyler, Julien, Willy, Liam McRae, Richard from Street Attraction. Fast lays, fast blownouts. That’s the most efficient type of game. It’s always been like that.And That’s what I use.
– Guys who can’t : Krauser, Tom, and Todd from RSD. Since these guys can’t escalate fast, they’ve created a long set of routines and verbal game to compensate for acting like pussies, just like Mistery did. Notice that Todd is pretty good looking and still he falls in the guys-who-can’t-escalate-fast category, along with Krauser and Tom (but slightly better than them due to nightgame experience). It’s just a skill they don’t possess yet. And they will likely never acquire that, since they’ve almost convinced themselves that they got verbal game (in the reality, chick’s already decided to fuck them and she’s just waiting there hoping that they’ll shut the fuck up and make a real move). These are the guys that always like to talk about their “1000 sets of pain” and “long dates to nowhere”.
Some truths abouth Game:
1- There are no “dates to nowhere”, if you pull the girl and go for the makeout in the first 3 minutes of interaction. After this simple move, she either leaves or she stays. If she stays, it’s up to you decide if you want to move it forward or not. the move is not for the girl. It’s for YOU to decide if you like her or not, if there’s chemistry or not, so you don’t waste time on a weak lead.
2- Any guy who insists in the concept of “Game” is a guy with poor escalation skills. Meaning he’s too fuckin’ slow at getting physical compliance. All that “Game” really is, is a huge number of openings combined to the fastest possible escalation (hands caressing in the first 5 minutes). This is true, natural R-Selection. Yep, you can still get laid by postponing your escalation and trusting in the power of your “eye-contact”, and “mesma”, but consider those lays as a gift from the Universe. When I get laid out of a number (instead of SDL), I consider it a gift from God.
3- girls hotness is NOT a factor . It is actually possibile to SDL 9 and 10. And no, they are not sluts. It’s just nature. Fast escalation is following the rhythm of nature. You can kiss close a 10 in 5 minutes on the street and bounce her back home in no time. But of course, the most you realize she’s a 10 you chicken out, go back to verbal game and that’s why it is “not possible to same-day-lay a 10”. Bullshit. Chicks are REALLY all the same. All chicks want fast escalation deep inside. Believe the opposite, and don’t get laid.
4- When you are a 55+ years old male 6, then and only then you are allowed to bitch about looks. If you are fat, get on a diet. If you are less than 55 years old and average looking, you’re just scared to escalate. Try to escalate even FASTER than Willy Beck and Tyler and THEN report your results.
Krauser is a nice guy and a good writer. Ironically, his brilliant verbal game is the very reason that’s preventing him from discovering true-core R-selection. [While I appreciate you providing a coherent argument, you are so wrong. I’ve done all that fast escalation – all it does is freak out everything except the strongest Yes Girls. GLGs can afford to be horrifically reckless in escalation because the next IOI is a few minutes away. It’s also easier in the US and in nightclubs due to the prevalence of sluttiness and drunkeness there. I’ve hung out with Richard for a fortnight (and Eddie much more) and Jabba for several years. I know their game FAR better than you. Richard is not the crazy escalation guy you think he is, that’s just one side of his game. Nor is Jabba. Because they are smarter than that and know not to blow good leads on ego-based fast escalation. My guess is you are massively underperforming due to such wasteful game. K.]
Pingback: My sceptic bout Willy Beck. I was a Bootcamp participant 3 years ago teached by Jason
April 29, 2016 at 5:41 am
I have many merchants that refer to us as “their discount girl” since I ensure I’m constantly respectful.
June 6, 2016 at 8:30 pm
Reblogged this on BroKinetic.
August 2, 2016 at 2:12 am
I’m new to the pua scene but regarding the value of a mans looks, I think having a well proportioned face should be fundamental up there with having a good haircut or sexy sense of style if not more so. You can try your best to look attractive but in the end if your face looks goofy ( nose too big, weak chin, lazy eye) how much more difficult will it for you to be takin seriously as a sexy man on first impressions… Im 5’8 and was genetically unlucky to have all of these undesired features. When I visited a plastic surgeon and saw the new photoshopped version of my face it was rather remarkable how much more pleasing I became to look at just having a base line level of symmetry in my face as well looking more masculine with a stronger chin. If a guy is wanting to attract very beautiful woman SMV 7-10 and has a goofed up face and is not rich or tall and muscular, I think getting the face fixed should be top priority. Just my two pennies…
Pingback: What I learned about Roy Walker from his blog – Milin's Adventure
August 4, 2019 at 1:40 pm
Great Content Krauser! Could you recommend a book/material or a blog post etc. aimed specifically at Good looking guys? Thank you!