Are you familiar with the term “uncanny valley”? It’s a term that came into use once robotics. CGI and video game graphics all became sufficiently advanced to make that leap from “obviously not human” to “kinda human-like”. A quick search on Google got me this definition:
used in reference to the phenomenon whereby a computer-generated figure or humanoid robot bearing a near-identical resemblance to a human being arouses a sense of unease or revulsion in the person viewing it
The icky feeling you get from observing a humanoid in the uncanny valley is because your brain senses it’s just off. It’s like the disgust reflex for spoiled food or brakish water. With that in mind, let’s introduce you to the Ricky Martin of London Daygame…… Michael Valmont.
- Is it because he’s wearing a suit (to look professional) while shooting a video in the stationery cupboard of his boss’s office?
- Is it the smarmy smile like a used car salesman?
- Is it the over-use of hand gestures rote-learned from a How To Succeed In Public Speaking seminar?
- Is it that he describes himself as “world leading self-development and dating coach” from that same stationery cupboard?
- Is it is completely fake forced empathy and gratitude in wishing us a happy new year?
- Is it the weird facial expressions such as that flash of eye-bugging 0:23 into the video?
- Is it because he sounds like he’s reciting someone else’s material rather than his own?
It’s all just rather uncanny. We know that homosexuals are characterised by infantilism, narcissism, lack of empathy and an all-round superficial fabulousness. Mr Valmont appears to give off precisely these signals, so my first thought is perhaps that uncanniness has a more interesting – shall we say closeted – origin. Let’s check out an infield. Bear in mind he’s listed this following video as a “social experiment” so it won’t give us a window into his method, but rather a window into his world view and vibe.
First things first. He’s a good-looking tall white dude. Therefore I’m predicting a Johnny Cassell-type response where girls will initially stop, react well, and then gradually get creeped out. Let’s see.
0:08 – Okay, first set is creeped out and quickly excuses themselves.
0:13 – The music is making me want to buy a girl roses and chocolate. I feel so…… noble. It’s warming my cold red-pill heart.
0:24 – His manner is like a condescending psychotherapist, like the M’kay guy in South Park. That’s uncanny and she bolts.
0:50 – She really fancied him on looks alone.
1:09 – Note the weirded out look to the side. She knows she’s not actually nicely dressed but she can’t believe a guy that hot is talking to her so she just spins around, spazzing. That’s a nice baseline to measure the impact of his looks before game is applied.
1:51 – Pedestalising and lacking sexual tension. Now, remember this is a social experiment so he’s not trying to fuck them. Nonetheless, note the vibe for comparison with the next infield below.
So at this point you’re probably thinking what I was – what a faggot! His pieces-to-camera are clumsy and unconvincing and his infield work is creepy and uncalibrated. Just another purple pill charlatan ripping off other people’s material then mixing it with blue pill happy thoughts and pranks for the benefit of YouTube monkeys. This shit is clogging up YouTube and presents a formidable interference smokescreen for a dedicated wannabe daygamer to find his way through. When deciding to add him to my London Daygame Buffoons series, that’s what I thought.
However, rather than run my mouth half-cocked (I use Twitter for that!) I did my due diligence. I delved into some of his older infields and was very much surprised. Here’s one from two years ago.
You weren’t expecting that were you? After those god-awful recent videos it was a big surprise to find out he’s actually running a solid London Daygame Model. Let’s analyse it in detail. I have to admire textbook game, even when they’re using my textbook uncredited.
0:13 – Good confident stop. Tap on the arm, correct distance, entitled vocal tone.
0:19 – Direct and fairly ballsy opener. She’s immediately hooked. Strong yes girl. That’s the power of being tall, good-looking and opening well. It’s like Roger Federer smashing a strong first serve – the point is already won even if the opponent gets their racquet onto the ball.
0:25 – Further confirmation of the hook. She’s stacking him. Her momentum is completely killed.
0:42 – Spotting that she doesn’t really know how to stack, he takes over with one of his own. This is all technically correct so far. Nice one.
0:47 – And now some challenging to get her qualifying. Textbook. He lets her talk and holds solid body language.
1:01 – Note the excess of energy seeping out through her fidgeting. This girl is already completely sold.
1:04 – “Observational comment + Tease” straight out of Daygame Nitro (Mastery wasn’t released until a few months after this video).
1:09 – He vacuums to draw her into asking a question. Again, solid LDM.
1:19 – Now he slips from vibing into investment. They are being more normal now. Attraction is done. It’s enough just to spike a little from here on out.
1:37 – Gentle reframe of her job on brand identities, painting a picture with words. Solid.
1:42 – Unlike his public speaking videos, these gestures are real and appropriate. He’s having fun and it’s putting a nice vibe onto the girl.
1:54 – And another teasing story. So far, I like what I’m seeing. It’s a technically solid set.
2:05 – Pushing back and disagreeing. LDM suggests you find at least one thing to disagree on, playfully.
2:41 – The investment is so-so. He’s doing the right things but lacking a bit of the quality that he showed in the first two minutes. Still, it’s adequate. You don’t need to be awesome every second of the set.
3:01 – Qualifying and reframing her age. I don’t think it’s necessary in this set but it doesn’t do any harm. Sometimes when you’ve learned the model, you want to run every piece of the model regardless.
3:05 – This is a very covert sexual spike. He could only be in trouble with the police if he intended on interferring with her sexually. So, clear man-woman frame rather than gay best friend.
3:15 – He should be wrapping it up now. That was her signal to get on with it. She’s sold.
3:20 – He correctly reads the signal. So, no Johnny Cassell-like calibration miscues here.
3:32 – This is his first bad move of the set. Up until now it was smooth solid work. Suddenly he betrays a lack of entitlement and begins babbling and second-guessing himself. If she likes him enough she’ll interpret it as Hugh Grant bumbling and think it’s cute. If she’s in any way on the fence, it’ll guarantee a flake. I think he’s going to get away with it this time.
3:46 – Mars Bars line is a good recovery.
4:11 – Correctly refuses her full name. Note how vibe is better than when Cassell was actively asking for full names.
4:21 – “That’s too much romance for me” is also a subtle push. Solid.
4:31 – “I like that, give me a hug” ends it with a clear statement of interest so she doesn’t think he’s just being a clown.
I’ll admit it, the reason I chose to feature Michael Valmont on the blog is Eddie and I had been pissing ourselves laughing at how bad his recent videos are. We just thought what a fucking buffoon. I actually thought he was a closet homo shamming daygame to build a prank channel.
But no. I checked a few more of his late-2013 street stop videos and they are a similar style and quality. The dude had proper LDM skills. Okay so he’s tall and good-looking, and okay he’s not showing Y-H-T but it’s still technically solid work. The dude has clearly studied the material and gone through the grind on the street to internalise it.
Now, the big mystery is why is he teaching all that non-technical purple pill faggotry now? What happened to take his vibe from “quite charming” to “uncanny valley” – or is his vibe still pretty good but he just feels uncomfortable speaking directly to the camera – hence the weirdness is an artifact of shooting the videos rather than something inherent in him? Has he done an ayuhasca-addled Sasha-Marshall-Berba type disappearing up own arsehole reversal or does he still coach his students in a technical manner with actionable behaviours? Is he pandering to the purple pill crowd for the money or have I got it all wrong based on having only seen his recent prank videos?
Conclusion: Real skills, mystifying recent direction.
Opinions below. And if you’re reading this Michael, are you still running the LDM and do you coach it in technical steps ala myself and guys like Tom and Eddie? (And apologies for calling you a fag. I wanted to start the post with a strong impact to bring out my own surprise at the quality of the infields).