Post: #6101

@VforVlad: The quality seemed to go way up when I bumped my age up to 26. I've noticed a lot of them had preferred ranges of 23+ or 25+ or more.


By the way, how many Trump fans here have fucked girls who have something like "Please fuck off if you voted for the Cheeto in Chief" written on their profile?

Post: #6102

I will reaffirm what I said about the value of being simultaneously online, whether it's OKCupid, POF, or Match.

It seems rather than digging into the ice-cream cartons on the weekends, women are trolling the dating sites bigtime--and taking initiative such as liking or sending first messages. It's a thirst thing, of course. But it's like clockwork. They come out of the woodworks on the weekend when they don't have a date.

Post: #6103

Install easy auto refresh from chrome apps. then it will keep you logged in all the time , thus getting more hits

Post: #6104

(02-27-2017 08:42 PM)cosworth Wrote:  Install easy auto refresh from chrome apps. then it will keep you logged in all the time , thus getting more hits

IMHO, the goal of being online is to actively stake out the dating sites in real-time sort of like prowling around a nightclub. So having chrome sit there and keep your status online probably won't accomplish much. Women are still, at least the higher SMV ones, going to wait for you to make the first move. But making the move while they're online has a greater chance of them actually reading it and getting a reply.

Of course, as they carry the phones around they will get the messages anyway, but them being online means they are intentionally using the app. They've probably learned to ignore the steady stream of alerts when they are busy with work or everyday errands. I really think this is a key strategy. You could send the perfect icebreaker and have a kickass profile but if the message isn't immediately read it will probably get buried behind others and never read.

And about getting the profile noticed passively...I really wonder sometimes whether women actually browse profiles that much or just sit back and filter through messages. Even just passive browsing of profiles is more of a proactive move than women like to make. On the free dating sites I've found the curated matches to be largely a waste of time. Only on paid sites like Match is there any real pressure exerted to scan through a daily batch--as if they're supposed to be any better than the output of a manual search.

If anyone here has female relatives who use dating sites it might be helpful to pump them for information on how they actually use it.

Post: #6105

If I could have one wish come true, it would be for online dating to be abolished.

Instead of "competing" with the 500+ guys/week who are messaging the women through Failbook/Instagram/Snapchat/Tinder/OKC/POFarts/Tinder that I approach IRL, I would be "competing" with 0 guys/week, since virtually no other man actually does cold approach pick-up. I'd have to think my date/number rate rate would quadruple.

And while, yes, I've done a bit of online dating over the last 6 weeks, cold approach is something I do 7 days/week and that's always been my primary focus. The only reason I even started doing online dating is b/c LA is a veritable pussy purgatory, so I was essentially left with no choice.

Post: #6106

(02-28-2017 12:00 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 08:42 PM)cosworth Wrote:  Install easy auto refresh from chrome apps. then it will keep you logged in all the time , thus getting more hits

IMHO, the goal of being online is to actively stake out the dating sites in real-time sort of like prowling around a nightclub. So having chrome sit there and keep your status online probably won't accomplish much. Women are still, at least the higher SMV ones, going to wait for you to make the first move. But making the move while they're online has a greater chance of them actually reading it and getting a reply.

Of course, as they carry the phones around they will get the messages anyway, but them being online means they are intentionally using the app. They've probably learned to ignore the steady stream of alerts when they are busy with work or everyday errands. I really think this is a key strategy. You could send the perfect icebreaker and have a kickass profile but if the message isn't immediately read it will probably get buried behind others and never read.

And about getting the profile noticed passively...I really wonder sometimes whether women actually browse profiles that much or just sit back and filter through messages. Even just passive browsing of profiles is more of a proactive move than women like to make. On the free dating sites I've found the curated matches to be largely a waste of time. Only on paid sites like Match is there any real pressure exerted to scan through a daily batch--as if they're supposed to be any better than the output of a manual search.

If anyone here has female relatives who use dating sites it might be helpful to pump them for information on how they actually use it.

The two most recent girls that I've been with, both off of POF....decided to show me their messages while we were hanging out post-sex and I saw first hand their modus operandi.

I was appalled at how this girl went through her inbox and her play-by-play commentary. "Eh he is ugly", "...he looks kinda alright". "...I'm gonna keep talking to him" etc,. I'm paraphrasing.

It started out with her just looking for my profile since she asked me something which was already mentioned in my bio. She barely found me...I saw myself while she was scrolling down and told her to go back up since she missed it.

The second girl was pretty much doing the same thing, quickly scrolling through her messages, and deleting one word messages.


The one thing about both these girls is that I got to them early. THey were recent sign-ups so they didn't settle into the app just yet. They're gonna be a nightmare to deal with for the next batch of guys if they decide to become full-time online daters.

Post: #6107

Jesus. I should start calling myself "OKComplainer".

Post: #6108

I honestly don't know what the hell went wrong here. This was one of those self-made CEO chicks.

Post: #6109

Fake profile perhaps? I can't say exactly without seeing her profile, but there is a possibility you were exchanging messages a with a guy. Look at her writing style. No spelling or grammar errors, almost no emotion (save for smileys), complete sentences, very pragmatic and to the point. And that "lol" at the end of some of her messages seems so artificial.

Post: #6110

Although there's been a titanic influx of fake profiles, this one seemed for real, given the amount of content and pix, but given the deal, I shouldn't have messed with it to begin with.

Post: #6111

(03-09-2017 08:37 PM)Mess O. Wrote:  Although there's been a titanic influx of fake profiles, this one seemed for real, given the amount of content and pix, but given the deal, I shouldn't have messed with it to begin with.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but she's 37 and has the user name "LivinLovingLife."

Even assuming she was real your chances of banging her I'd estimate at pretty close to 0%.

Maybe it's just my area, but I'm skeptical of any hot girl who agrees to a date within 3 messages because she's "intrigued by my profile." I've tried the direct route before, asking to meet within three messages and even dumpy 4s either ghost on me when I do so or tell me in essence "fuck off."

But it's not that I haven't banged hot chicks from OKC before. It's just that 90% of the girls on there are time-wasters.

After you've gone on a decent number of dates with OKC girls and have messaged a thousand of them you start to get a "sixth sense" of what girls are good leads and what girls aren't simply by looking at their pictures and profiles. I don't bother messaging the overwhelming majority of chicks I see on there, even ones that are attractive, simply because I get the vibe from their pictures and profile that they're a waste of time based on past experience. Maybe 1 in 10 profiles of attractive girls give me an intuition that it's even worth shooting off a text.

(03-04-2017 04:05 PM)VforVlad Wrote:  The one thing about both these girls is that I got to them early. THey were recent sign-ups so they didn't settle into the app just yet. They're gonna be a nightmare to deal with for the next batch of guys if they decide to become full-time online daters.

Yep. Most of the iGirls I went on dates with struck me as lifers, who have likely been on dozens or hundreds of dates. Just by statistical arguments with any random girl who agrees to a date with you from OKC you're way more likely to be the 247th than the 3rd.

Probably about half the dates I went on I got the impression that the chick didn't really view me as fully human, just number 4 this week who would hopefully comp their meal.

The overwhelming majority of girls I had sex with were girls who hadn't been on the site very long, once they've become regular serial daters your chances are nil. It's good to try to figure that out as soon as possible; for example girls who use even a little bit of their profile to wax philosophical about "I'm trying this again" or meta-analyze the "nature" of online dating or talk about their experiences with other men they've met online have been on way too many dates and are useless for anything. It's an absolute free-for-all paradise for narcissistic women and ejecting those types consumed the majority of my time.

Post: #6112

^ And the shitty thing is I just noticed that OKC got rid of the sort by "Who's New" field, so you couldn't just scroll down the list of new talent and hopefully avoid many of those same "lifers" from the get-go.

I imagine that pretty much everyone was doing that and pissing the long-term bitches off. Sucks.

Post: #6113

(03-14-2017 01:04 PM)XPQ22 Wrote:  ^ And the shitty thing is I just noticed that OKC got rid of the sort by "Who's New" field, so you couldn't just scroll down the list of new talent and hopefully avoid many of those same "lifers" from the get-go.

I imagine that pretty much everyone was doing that and pissing the long-term bitches off. Sucks.

Sucks big league. I only use the app when traveling, but this was the best way to filter for fledgling okc pussy.

Wouldn't surprise me if females adopted a similar strategy. Last chick I banged on there essentially gamed me (she fired the opening message- was very eager and responsive). Then when I pulled her number she sort of ghosted and played hard to get- only to come on strong when we actually met up (knew the bang was in the bag after less than 30 mins). I theorized she probably filtered profiles based on 'who's new' looking for only new interesting prospects.

Post: #6114

(03-14-2017 03:10 PM)Player_1337 Wrote:  Wouldn't surprise me if females adopted a similar strategy. Last chick I banged on there essentially gamed me (she fired the opening message- was very eager and responsive). Then when I pulled her number she sort of ghosted and played hard to get- only to come on strong when we actually met up (knew the bang was in the bag after less than 30 mins). I theorized she probably filtered profiles based on 'who's new' looking for only new interesting prospects.

Maybe so. When I first started using it around the summer of 2015 I usually got around 3-4 unsolicited messages from girls a month. If I was lucky maybe one of them would be attractive.

It dropped to around 1 a month by mid 2016. As of currently I can't recall the last time a girl opened me, but granted I haven't been using it that much since last summer - been mostly occupied with a couple "regulars."

I hit the site up again recently for shits and giggles and went on one meet from there a couple weeks ago - it was just another early 30s serial dater looking to con me into paying for dinner.

Sadly I was pretty shocked at how many openers I had to fire off to get that one date, it was probably around 50 or more. Maybe around 10 responded but most of those ghosted after one or two messages. Compared to just early 2016 that's terrible - around V-day last year I was pretty much guaranteed to get a meet with someone if I sent out even 15-20 openers.

I haven't updated my pictures in a while but eh, if I try to do online game seriously again at some point I think I'll just try a different app for a while. I think OKC around here is particularly over-saturated with guys in my demographic (mid to late 30s professionals) and has been for some time now.

Post: #6115

Funny, how the girls listed as being in an open relationship are -always- ugly.

Post: #6116

(03-16-2017 12:12 PM)Mess O. Wrote:  Funny, how the girls listed as being in an open relationship are -always- ugly.

Almost always, at least around here, and what sucks is that fashion of open-cuckoldry seems very popular in the Northeast and sometimes you click on a girl's photo and it says "In an Open Relationship" and there's a little picture of a dude on her profile.

"Hi! I'm in an open relationship with this guy right here! I'm takin' his dick pretty often. Anyway, want to chat with me on the internet and take me out to dinner sometime? Well, if you think you have what it takes I might be able to fit you into my busy schedule..."

Feels bad. I wish they'd put a disclaimer on those so I don't have to bother clicking.

Do guys really think a girl who already openly declares herself to be taken by one, or more, or God knows how many men providing for ass is going to be somehow easier to bang? I mean, I wouldn't bet on it. My guess is that she's just going to give you lousy attitude to the heavens.

Post: #6117

My opener right now:

Quote:if you don't agree to a date with me an infant detonates in his diaper and a nice super sweet old nanny has to clean it up

...together we can stop the violence
if they just check my profile out and don't respond I wait and hour and hit them with:

Quote:Damn you're really gunna make a nice lady clean up that shitty diaper, thats cold blooded

they usually laugh and respond

Post: #6118

Pretty bold releasing your opener on here, it's probably gonna be dead soon but props for sure.

Post: #6119

(04-08-2017 09:18 PM)Mufasa Wrote:  My opener right now:

Quote:if you don't agree to a date with me an infant detonates in his diaper and a nice super sweet old nanny has to clean it up

...together we can stop the violence
if they just check my profile out and don't respond I wait and hour and hit them with:

Quote:Damn you're really gunna make a nice lady clean up that shitty diaper, thats cold blooded

they usually laugh and respond

I've already explained why I'm against obvious copy-paste openers earlier in the thread, so I won't go through that again, but I feel like throwing in my 2 cents on your followup message: Don't do followup messages.

Many times a girl will check out your message/profile, like what she sees, and plan to respond later on. Often these are the most interested prospects, as they're setting aside time to write you a high-quality response when they're not busy, rather than briskly typing some pointless 2 word reply on their phone.

Now imagine how interested-and-planning-to-respond-later girl reacts to your followup message. Even I can see that it makes you look like a desperate, over-eager chode, and girls have a much more sensitive "desperate chode" detector than I do. So your status is instantly demoted in the eyes of someone who was seriously considering fucking you. And to gain what? Any girl who wouldn't have responded to just your first message isn't that interested.

I know you said "they usually laugh and respond" but I guarantee that every one of those responses is either completely worthless and bound to lead nowhere (e.g. "hahah i guess"), or from a girl who was already planning to reply to your first message.

Post: #6120

@ delta
word word

Im just getting on this OK cupid stuff so safe to say i got a lot to learn

edit: I'm definitley going to have to read all this shit but real quick delta. How often is "many times" like percentage wise? Assume I'm some newbie who doesnt know shit about shit

Post: #6121

^I can't really quantify that, but it is quite often.

Imagine you're at work, hanging out with some buddies, or whatever, when you open up your phone and see a message from some cute chick you'd definitely like to meet. I'd bet that instead of responding right then, you'd go "I'll think of something clever to say when I get home." No reason to believe it's any different on their end.

Post: #6122

I haven't logged on to okcupid for a few months, but it looks like along with getting rid of the option to filter results by "who is new" ...they have also started restricting (or restricting more severely) the age of the profiles that show up in your search results.

This is a new(ish) development.

For example I have my age set at 30, and I can't see any 18-19yo, very few 20yo profiles, and only a few 21 year old as well. 22+ seems to have a normal number of results. This is with the little check box (show matches looking for my age) unchecked.

It is easy to change your age on okcupid, so I have found that with my age listed at 22, I see the most results 18-19, at 23, only slightly less, 26, slightly less, 28, very few, and 30, none.

It seems to correlate to the age the girls have listed in their preferences, but is not straight across the board for me.

FWIW, your results may vary, but something to keep in mind.


If you can get away with listing your age as 23, 26 etc, it might be worth doing. If not.... it seems you can still message them, so one option is to set up a junk profile age 20-22, search, open a bunch of girls profiles in tabs, then log out andlog into your normal account, refresh pages, and message the younger ones.

Post: #6123

I haven't done OKCupid in years. Does it still work well for you guys? I hate Tinder and how pic focused it is so I'm thinking of going back to OKCupid.

Post: #6124

(03-09-2017 01:44 AM)Mess O. Wrote:  I honestly don't know what the hell went wrong here. This was one of those self-made CEO chicks.

I think the elephant in the room needs to be addressed.

1.) That girl is hideous. I understand we all have preferences but she's a legit 1 or weak 2 looks wise. Not even joking. You can be doing much better than that. If you don't care or oblivious than disregard this.

2.) If you are going to post a pic block out the girls name or anyone can find her profile in literally 15 seconds. If you don't care than disregard this.

3.) If you are going to post a picture don't do it from a personal photobucket account. If it's not tied to your real name than or you don't care than disregard this.

Post: #6125

(04-11-2017 08:44 PM)dirty_old Wrote:  I haven't logged on to okcupid for a few months, but it looks like along with getting rid of the option to filter results by "who is new" ...they have also started restricting (or restricting more severely) the age of the profiles that show up in your search results.

This is a new(ish) development.

For example I have my age set at 30, and I can't see any 18-19yo, very few 20yo profiles, and only a few 21 year old as well. 22+ seems to have a normal number of results. This is with the little check box (show matches looking for my age) unchecked.

It is easy to change your age on okcupid, so I have found that with my age listed at 22, I see the most results 18-19, at 23, only slightly less, 26, slightly less, 28, very few, and 30, none.

It seems to correlate to the age the girls have listed in their preferences, but is not straight across the board for me.

FWIW, your results may vary, but something to keep in mind.


If you can get away with listing your age as 23, 26 etc, it might be worth doing. If not.... it seems you can still message them, so one option is to set up a junk profile age 20-22, search, open a bunch of girls profiles in tabs, then log out andlog into your normal account, refresh pages, and message the younger ones.

Good post. I suspected this but didn't research it until I saw your post. The only difference is the (show matches looking for my age) is completely broken for me. I only get girls where my age falls into their preferences. This is pretty typical for OKC, they are always fucking around with their site and things are never the same. I've even seen people report differences from city to city