Taking r-selection seriously: A review of Nick Krauser’s Daygame Overkill by Rouge Engineer
When it comes to evolutionary fitness, women are cold, calculating creatures. And brutally realistic: of their partners and themselves. Women may fantasize about securing the attention of an Alpha for life, but alone, in the silence of a room, most women know they’re unlikely to achieve this. With Alphas, the most they can hope to secure is the briefest of moments. Adventurous moments. Moments to last a lifetime. And they do.
Alpha fucks, beta bucks. Secure the genetic seed of the momentary passing of an Alpha, secure the resources of an all-too-numerous beta. Optimal female strategy – at least for the teeming crowd of 6s, 7s, and low 8s (a different strategy might well be optimal for higher 8s and 9s). This fact, this most fundamental of social facts, illuminates much social commentary on the manosphere. The red pill. The forbidden knowledge. But oddly, this knowledge hasn’t been put to work in game itself. Yes, dual mating strategy to talked about in the game literature – but as a basic worldview. It rarely, if ever, informs, shapes, crafts practical game strategy. This knowledge hasn’t been ‘weaponised’. Until now.
Overkill takes female dual mating strategy seriously– and attempts to weaponise it in the form of a set of behavioural strategies devised to increase the likelihood of triggering women’s propensity to engage in quick, fast r-selection mating behaviour – adventure sex – rather than k-selection mating behaviour. Or more simply, to help ensure a certain signal or vibe is given that increases the chances of women responding to you as a perceived Alpha rather than perceived Beta.
The theoretical model
Overkill’s chief theoretical innovation is charting the spectrum between the dual mating strategies. What would the ideal or idealised Alpha look like? What would the idealised Beta look like? Clearly the ideal Alpha would be the ideal Lover – someone a woman fucks for the thrill (conscious reason), for the fitter genes (unconscious reason). Someone anonymous. Someone fleeting. Think the 6 foot 5, masculine, jaw lined, raw masculine vibe guys herding women from the dance floor into the cubicles as effortlessly as shepherds shepherding sheep into the fold. The ideal Beta would be the ideal Provider – someone a woman fucks purely for resources ($$$). Think the ugly, greasy, hunchback desperados walking awkwardly out of knocking shops.
Between these two extremes, these two ideals innocent of any pretence, is 99% of reality: sugar daddies, flings, harems, husbands, good boyfriends, bad boyfriends. The spectrum of rationalisations (“having a sugar daddy doesn’t make me a prostitute” – oh yes it does, luv). Between these two extremes, most socio-sexual interactions operate. This is where men do battle every single day, with themselves, with other men, with women – whether knowingly or unknowingly. According to Krauser, the spectrum between Idealised Alpha (Lover or L) and Idealised Beta (Provider or P) can be charted as follows:
L-range: knowing harem members, fuck buddies (who sometimes are unknowingly members of a harem), r-selected boyfriend, r-selected husband.
(Krauser orders this slightly differently and omits the concept of r-selected husband (perhaps because the concept is incoherent?)– this ordering reflects my own ordering of degrees of Alphaness. After all, securing a woman who is knowingly a member of a harem, accepting being a side bitch, a loyal side bitch – this surely more of an accomplishment than securing the r-selected love of a girlfriend?).
P-range: k-selected boyfriends, k-selected husbands, sugar daddies.
It’s obviously in a man’s best interests to be within the L-range. No question. Yes we have our different preferences. Some would be happiest with a harem. Others with an old skool wifey. And indeed our preferences change with time. Doesn’t matter which particular arrangement we seek: whether harem, fuckbuddy, short-term girlfriend, long-term girlfriend, wifey, the L-range of the spectrum is where to be. We all know the kind of lives that the overwhelming majority of men who occupy the P-range of the spectrum endure.
Now comes the flash of realisation.
Only Alphas will trigger L-range responses – whether she is willing to act as a quickie, as a fuckbuddy or even consciously a member of your burgeoning harem. Geeks, nice boys, average boys, good guys: their behavioural signals will only activate P-range responses. But by definition Alphas are rare. By definition, only rare, Alpha behavioural signals will activate L-range responses: balls, vibe, masculinity, mastery.
The more your game signals such rare traits, the more likely you will activate a woman’s L-range responses. The less your game signals such traits, the less likely those responses will be triggered – which means being defaulted and pigeonholed along the P-range, with all that involves. We now have a solid basis for day game: the best kind of day game – perhaps even the only one worthy of the name game, as anything less would seem to be a mere numbers strategy – will be the day game that seeks to harness and amplify such signal to maximise the chances of triggering L-range responses.
Do existing day game models model this effectively? Mostly they do not. They’ll have some occasional Alpha melodies, bits and pieces of effective signalling, true, but also an incredible amount of Nice Guy noise – noise that drowns out any good stuff. If you doubt this, think about so-called granddad game. This strategy, from a well-know node in the manosphere, is to mentally pretend you’re a granddad and rabbit on and on about topics when talking to a woman. How likely is that to ignite that secret passion for the Alpha male laying deep within each woman’s heart?
Enter Daygame Overkill. Overkill presents not only the theoretical viewpoint above in greater detail but presents a set of behavioural skills shaped by that viewpoint – the practical model, as demonstrated by Krauser over a generous number of infields. What are these behavioural skills? That’s the price of admission and so I wont be giving details here. But suffice to say it’s holistic: not simply verbal communication, words and tonality, but also physical and deep vibe communication, working in unison to spark a vibe and subliminally communicate it.
The practical (demonstrated) model
Broadly, the theoretical model is sound. Accordingly, the practical model should be years ahead of other day game models. In my judgement, it is. It’s pure quality.
Does that mean it’s perfect? Not at all and nor does Krauser even hint that it is. One of joys of Daygame Overkill is that because Krauser discusses the theoretical model in detail, you can refine the practical model according to your own theoretical understanding and experience. For my own part, I believe the practical model has some healthy scope for further development and calibration. In any quest for knowledge, especially forbidden knowledge, this is only natural. In my judgement, some things should be amped up, some things need to be toned down, and some more contextual sensitivity is needed. Action this and the L-signal will be all the more clearer and louder.
(1) Amping up the innuendo – In my experience, eye-contact, touching and innuendos are the workhorses of day game attraction: be or become a natural at this and much of the work is already done. Krauser’s practical model excels at eye contact and touching but innuendo seems underused. Indeed, there are quite a number of missed opportunities for innuendo. One missed opportunity I couldn’t forget is Infield 2, where Krauser is describing the woman as both chocolate and caramel. She is loving it. “First I’m chocolate and now I’m caramel” she purrs. Krauser replies: “It means you’re very sweet”. Sweet? Ok, but how about this: “Delicious. It means you’re delicious”. Say it slowly. With the right kind of smile. Better, right? Small change, clearer signalling.
(2) Toning down micro bursts of Mr Nice Guy – In the Infields, I believe there’s an occasional frequency of micro Mr Nice Guy bursts (spikes?) – which soon adds up, weakening the L-signal. Some examples: in Infield 1, Krauser makes an incredible physical move. I’m not going to reveal it here – the move alone is worth the price of admission. The verbal part of the move begins with “Sorry I needed to…”. However, this could be stronger: in general, “excuse me” is more masculine: “Excuse me, I needed”. Also, at the end of sets, Krauser usually says: “Let me take your number”. Better: “I’ll take your number”. Finally, at the very end of sets, Krauser shakes hands. Better: Kiss cheeks goodbye at least, lips preferably. Especially in Europe, where that’s normal. Small changes, sharper signal. Micro dominance adds up to macro dominance. It might not seem a big deal to us consciously – but subconsciously, which scans for and scrutinizes every bit of behavioural information received, it can be a big deal, that leaky noise that betrays the otherwise silent submarine.
(3) When L-responses present, escalate to new location – Krauser secured the Infield 1 woman within a few minutes. Impressive. But he continued the set for another 7 or so minutes, entirely unnecessary in my judgement, during which the conversation got a little awkward in places, the vibe weakened in places. He scored her on the date on the other day – which goes to show how strong the initial opening and stacking was. But I was surprised the set continued for so long when it was obvious Krauser could have done a same-day lay: she was merely heading to the library, nothing important, he opens and she likes it, she quickly loves it, she was giving off solid L-range responses. At this point, it’s time to say, “Let’s go for a drink”, grab her hand and go. The rest is c(l)ockwork. Done deal. Indeed, she seemed disappointed at the end of the set, as if disappointed the encounter ended with a simple number swap. Even in the Q&A after the infield the question was raised why a same-day wasn’t initiated.
Krauser’s default is to ‘get number, date another time’ – and he has good reasons. One reason is that he doesn’t want to take the risk of spending 3 hours with a woman if ultimately she’s not interested beyond being the entertained (if she’s to flake, better that it happens on whatsapp). Another reason is the opportunity cost of day gaming other girls and collecting other numbers.
I totally understand these reasons. But we should also be aware of the risks this default. In this specific case, because her L-range responses were quickly activated, the continued street conversation started sounding and looking unnatural, awkward. This risked backfiring and shutting down L-range activation. Her L-range activation was quick and strong and so survived this prolonging of the street conversation, but a weaker activation might not have survived. In other cases, weaker L-range activity might be sufficient for a same day lay but unstable, not lasting to the next day (maybe the reason for the ultimate outcome of Infield 2?) – so better to strike when the iron is temporarily hot. This doesn’t mean ‘get number, date another time’ shouldn’t be the default. But it does show the need to be aware of the L-responses and to have the confidence to escalate to a new location quickly once L-responses are activated – exactly as an Alpha would. Once L-responses are activated, the risk of a woman wasting your time when initiating an instant date will be greatly reduced.
Daygame Overkill consists of two parts: the theoretical model and the practical (demonstrated) model. The theoretical based is solid. The practical model is quality. Not perfect (what is?) but quality.There is something for everyone. Beginners will see what’s possible and will save a lot of wasted time on dead ends and YouTube monkeys. Intermediate will upgrade their behavioural signalling, from Nice Guy to Adventure Guy. Advanced gamers will have a basis for understanding why what has worked worked and so a basis for further improvement and refinement.
By giving such a sound theoretical model, Daygame Overkill allows us to refine the practical model according to our own understanding and experiences. It provides a basis for developing our skills – and to keep developing. And all this for standard hourly rate of a whore. You lucky gits.
March 24, 2015 at 3:24 pm
I am not at this stage yet, but I do have some food for thought:
“(2) Toning down micro bursts of Mr Nice Guy”: I think this is more fractionation, the on/off dichotomy. Wouldn’t constantly being on bring ASD, or is that the whole point? A new type of numbers game…
March 24, 2015 at 3:31 pm
The song in the opening sequence is hilarious. Brilliant. [Thanks boss. I know a few guys have in on their iPod for state control! K.]
March 24, 2015 at 4:44 pm
It’s funny how my mindset shifted from adding a bit of bad to nice because it’s necessary to seeing that “bad” is in fact good. It’s one thing to understand on paper and another when you are considered to be r-selected, even if in the beginning it’s far from fully polished r-selected diamond, and it’s for moments. You simply can’t help but go further R. Much better to be full R who goes for a girlfriend than nice guy with a bit of bad traits…this is fully understanddable only when reactions from women begin to reflect the change you’ve made. It’s the ideas we have imprinted from previous reactions – as nice guys – that form our morality. Brutal honesty, integrity and devotion to self development are a must, though, for all this to work, especially mentally. I don’t think any inner game hack or number of approaches can trump something real – fashion, physical assymetry etc. can hold you back even if your mindset is extra strong because of the feedback you constantly get, the box you are put into (frame push)- ugly, nice guy, skinny-fat etc. [It’s extremely easy to be “confident” when all your feedback is positive, and thus in such cases is not indicative of mental fortitude. K.]
March 24, 2015 at 5:36 pm
This seems to be the general trend in daygame over the last few years. Think of Chris and Scotty from GLL or Justin Wayne or Willy Beck. They each have different ways of explaining their systems, but what are they all doing? Getting physical. I can’t think of a better way to showcase r-selection than that. All the above daygamers are very physical and persistent. They don’t rely on pure verbals the way that traditional day game did. However, all those guys are young. What it looks like is that Krauser has foiund a way to use light touching and strong sexual subliminals to screen for girls who are open for short term sex; a more sophisticated, cultured (I guess) version of the bull in a china closet physical screening game that American PUAs are coming up with. And yes, it is miles ahead of Rush’s “GALNUC” and elderly chat, which will basically only work if you are very good looking (ie GLL) or if you are her type. [Can’t really say about JW, but GLL and WB are clearly employing GLGG on women below their own looks. Their physicality is a screening mechanism for DTF rather than a finessed art to increase attraction. It works, but it’s not the same thing. Don’t interpret this as a criticism of their game – they know their strengths and play to them. Anyone in a similar situation with similar goals should pay attention to their advice. K.]
March 24, 2015 at 11:57 pm
I noticed Indian men do very poorly with women.
Do you have any tips for an Indian guy? [Yes. Do your own research instead of showing up on someone’s blog to derail a thread because expect them to do it for you. K.]
Pingback: Daily Linkage – March 25, 2015 | The Dark Enlightenment
March 25, 2015 at 12:41 pm
The r/k concept is useful when it ties the evo-psych talk back to actionable game. A female dual mating strategy means the male needs his portion of the strategy sorted, i.e. faster sex game.
Guys get hung up on perceived status within alpha/beta hierarchy, thinking if they achieve attraction, they achieve sex (maybe at night).
I remember one passage in Mastery on how attraction can be the hardest part for men and when they get good at it, “it’s like giving nukes to chimps”.
There’s all this nuance happening with fractionation, covert communication and calibration that really bring the interaction to life. When you’re in the moment it’s not as crucial what you say (was that alpha?) so much as how or that you said something (is she engaged? Is this fun?)
I think the “Overkill” references the wealth of detail going on in such compressed time frame.
March 25, 2015 at 2:07 pm
I think r-selection is the most important new theory in game since the Mystery Method. People have hinted at it in the past: old school PUAs not doing traditional dinner dates because it signals provider, 60 years of challenge urging guys to try and be the secret lover, not the boyfriend and RSD’s Tyler’s article on ‘The Secret Society’. It seems these people only had parts of the puzzle but had never put it all together into a consistent theory that told you both why it worked the way it does (the plural mating strategy of women), and how to use it (or weaponise it, to borrow vernacular from the article).
As for my own game, I have come to realise that although I give off r-selected spikes, I also confuse the girl by mixing this with provider behaviour.
I’d actually prefer to call this L-selected and P-selected (Lover, Provider). I know R-Selected and K-selected come from the evolutionary biology behind it but they don’t seem to make as much sense when it comes to game.
March 25, 2015 at 4:59 pm
The shift that happened from Attraction, Comfort, Seduction linear model to fluid fractals model and the shift from Nice Guy to Bad Boy game will in my opinion be followed by shift from “linear” r selection to fluid r selection understanding and demonstration, in both value and technique.
Example: Cheeky, “I don’t wanna be your boyfriend”, anti-provider verbal game, parody brute etc.-> Expoding into her world physically, hardcore screening, less verbal mastery, more invasion and “rude”, improvised compliments. As long as you do it right you won’t need five rings on each hand or stories about steaks and beer..although these outer modifications should still be in line with overall signal you transmit – you can’t wear baggy provider t-shirt with transversal stripes etc.
March 30, 2015 at 4:12 am
When is the next instalment of Balls Deep you lazy bastard? I’m not buying the book no matter how hard you delay it!
April 4, 2015 at 9:00 pm
I have a strong (bad) feeling that this is all going in the wrong direction. The whole R selection is blown out of proportion. I mean its a great advice for a nice guy to be more R selected, but if you are maximizing R selection to the extend thats presented here, you are running the risk of playing a similar game to good looking guys, where you only go for girls who are clearly up for adventure sex. While it might sound great on paper, in reality it will be hard to get quality and to keep it longer than a few bangs.
Not trying to bash here, but exploiting the girls sexual weakness is only going to last so long with this particular girl. After she’s had enough of alpha fucks, she’ll run back to her boyfriend and give him even better blow jobs every night and make him breakfast the next day. Not a bad position to be in.
@Krauser, you were saying that you don’t get the 9s and 10s yet. Do you think a 9 or a 10 will go for adventure sex consistently, just to full fill her lust?
I mean you can argue that you are old and blablabla, but don’t let it be your limit. I think its great advice and you are playing great game, but it has its limits and you won’t be able to break those limits until you look at it from different angles. R-Selection is great and it has clearly worked for you, but I think its not the highest level possible… [There’s considerably more to this than simply filtering for DTF girls. K.]
May 17, 2015 at 9:33 pm
Among other things, Krauser may be hinting at using lays generated from r-selection to achieve Deep Conversion
That’s what i got out of it.