Post: #26

(12-27-2017 03:48 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  Those prerequisites aren't needed. The only thing needed is decent style.

Yes, give this guy a haircut and a shave, put him in a blazer and I'm sure he'll be cleaning up on Tinder in no time.

(12-27-2017 03:48 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  No reason to set up a fake email or Facebook.
You can use your own.
If you do create a new on.. You don't need to add random people.

The reason why you do it is to bypass Facebook Account Kit's text messaging verification. If you verified too many times with the same number it wouldn't let you verify anymore. Not sure if this is still the case, if it turns out it's not I will edit my advice. I'll need to experiment.

(12-27-2017 03:48 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  I don't understand why San Francisco is hard.. Everyone I know including myself did well.

Maybe SF is easy for black guys. There aren't a lot of black guys here, so if you can stand out, you'll do well.

Every average white guy I know does poorly, and I've also run profiles in 15+ cities around the US, so I'd trust my judgment.

(12-27-2017 03:48 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  How is it hard to beat out autistic tech boys on tinder?

Run a girl profile in SF sometime and look at the male competition. It's quite good. Guys are smart. Messages are clever and profiles are optimized.

(12-27-2017 03:48 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  Bad logistics just means you can't afford to live in a better area. Either make more money and live in the city.. Or only focus on girls in the Bay.

No thanks, I'm not going to pay 4x what I pay now in rent for the sole purpose of women. Pussy isn't worth that much to me.

(12-27-2017 03:48 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  And At 52 matches and 2 dates.. No mention of a lay... That's like.. 4 percent conversion assuming you smash both girls.

Welcome to being ugly. Use my photos for a week and you'll, too, know what it feels like.

(12-27-2017 03:48 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  Needs to be optimized more for how to go from messaging her... To getting get in bed... Instead of a gauge how to use each app.

There are other guides like that out there. I'm happy to write that one up but it's a little more subjective because conversations can flow in so many different ways.

Post: #27

Quote: welcome to being ugly

My fucking guy :lmao: same boat bro. Looksmaxing only gets ya so far.

Post: #28

(12-27-2017 03:07 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  

Quote: welcome to being ugly

My fucking guy :lmao: same boat bro. Looksmaxing only gets ya so far.

Didnt you say you were 22-25 year old 6 footish blonde hair blue eyed white dude?

Post: #29

I'm a tall goofy looking white dude. I know some people think being tall and white means you'll constantly be approached by 7-8s and kill it on tindr but thats not been my experience. What is this the ugly Olympics?

Post: #30

Excellent post! This fits my experiences with Tinder rather well.

edit: LOL at the butthurt MGTOW who pinged you back on your Wordpress blog

Post: #31

Online dating = shooting fish in the barrel

Being white? Surely that's a troll.

Surly our brothers have no trouble online, plenty of fish in the sea for all tastes and looks.

Post: #32

(12-27-2017 04:53 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Online dating = shooting fish in the barrel

Being white? Surely that's a troll.

Surly our brothers have no trouble online, plenty of fish in the sea for all tastes and looks.

I wish we lived in a society where that was the case: https://theblog.okcupid.com/race-and-att...7dcbb4f060

The race pill is a hard one to swallow, but once you get past the societal conditioning, it's undeniable.

(12-27-2017 03:42 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  I'm a tall goofy looking white dude. I know some people think being tall and white means you'll constantly be approached by 7-8s and kill it on tindr but thats not been my experience. What is this the ugly Olympics?

Height is an overrated part of SMV. What guys think when they complain about "tall dudes getting all the girls":


Meanwhile the bulk of tall dudes look like this:


(of course, the guy's still punching way above his weight because of his height)

Post: #33

Damn. This is seems like a decent guide, but I have gotten better results with a regular face pic, a shirtless post workout selfie, and a profile with nothing other than my height.

Are you sure 6 pics isn't overkill or coming off as try hard? I would think 3-4 pics max.

Post: #34

(12-27-2017 05:27 PM)corsega Wrote:  I wish we lived in a society where that was the case: https://theblog.okcupid.com/race-and-att...7dcbb4f060

The race pill is a hard one to swallow, but once you get past the societal conditioning, it's undeniable.

You don't need to swallow that to begin with.

I never understand why guys on the forum point to the OKCupid survey that was noted from 2014. (I'd also say the same with POF)

1. OKCupid is literally the bottom of the barrel when it comes to dating apps.
2. OKCupid's talent is pretty terrible to begin with so that skews the demographics terribly.
3. If there was a Tinder or Bumble survey that was within a few years I'd be willing to contend it's true.

While the "be white" thing wasn't necessary it seems this is more projection than fact.

Secondly, I'm brown, and I absolutely slay off dating apps (specifically whites & mexicans) because they are the most efficient path from meeting to bang for me, and the most time cost efficient.

It's definitely a looks (pics)>interaction (openers/text game)> actual game (in person/inner game/LMR)

Dude who read the "be white" part shouldn't take heed to do this, they should follow the rest of the path you wrote (if it isn't time consuming for them).

Quote:Height is an overrated part of SMV. What guys think when they complain about "tall dudes getting all the girls"

I definitely agree with this, especially since I'm below 6ft.

The biggest defeater here is questioning your inner game and not honing it and not maxing out everything you have available to you.

Post: #35

(12-27-2017 05:53 PM)Repo Wrote:  Damn. This is seems like a decent guide, but I have gotten better results with a regular face pic, a shirtless post workout selfie, and a profile with nothing other than my height.

Are you sure 6 pics isn't overkill or coming off as try hard? I would think 3-4 pics max.

How do you know you've gotten better results? Have you tried two profiles, in the same city, same age range, same settings, with the two different sets of photos, then counted the matches from both and summed up the average attractiveness of the matches?

If not, then there's no way to know which is actually better for you.

(12-27-2017 06:16 PM)kaotic Wrote:  You don't need to swallow that to begin with.

I never understand why guys on the forum point to the OKCupid survey that was noted from 2014. (I'd also say the same with POF)

1. OKCupid is literally the bottom of the barrel when it comes to dating apps.
2. OKCupid's talent is pretty terrible to begin with so that skews the demographics terribly.
3. If there was a Tinder or Bumble survey that was within a few years I'd be willing to contend it's true.

While the "be white" thing wasn't necessary it seems this is more projection than fact.

Secondly, I'm brown, and I absolutely slay off dating apps (specifically whites & mexicans) because they are the most efficient path from meeting to bang for me, and the most time cost efficient.

Because it's the only online dating survey that was ever done. Tinder/Bumble don't want to do a survey like that because they don't want to alienate their userbase. As we've already seen on this thread, the truth hurts.

The first survey was done in 2009 when OKCupid was the best dating site. They then updated it in 2014. Talent level has nothing to do with the results.

I'm confused why guys are debating this. Not being white is a limiter to your SMV, just like being short, ugly, etc.. There is no argument. That doesn't mean that you can't make up for it with every other aspect of your SMV and crush white guys in the hookup world.

Post: #36

I mean I got better results than what you posted, but realize that isn't a completely fair comparison since we look different and live different places. I've used up to 5 photos before, and as long as my best photos were used I saw no difference between 5 or 2, so when I recreate my profile after deleting it every month or two I stopped bothering with the extra photos. How did you determine the optimum amount, as well as the optimum time for Tinder boost? Sorry not to be skeptical, but as people have pointed out some parts seemed obvious and already covered in the forum elsewhere (take great pics that demonstrate value, delete profile every now and then, etc), and other parts no justification was posted.

And in the interests of fair disclosure, are you affiliated with this black dragon guy, whoever he is? I have noticed several people linking to him recently.

Post: #37

(12-27-2017 08:01 PM)Repo Wrote:  I mean I got better results than what you posted, but realize that isn't a completely fair comparison since we look different and live different places. I've used up to 5 photos before, and as long as my best photos were used I saw no difference between 5 or 2, so when I recreate my profile after deleting it every month or two I stopped bothering with the extra photos. How did you determine the optimum amount, as well as the optimum time for Tinder boost? Sorry not to be skeptical, but as people have pointed out some parts seemed obvious and already covered in the forum elsewhere (take great pics that demonstrate value, delete profile every now and then, etc), and other parts no justification was posted.

And in the interests of fair disclosure, are you affiliated with this black dragon guy, whoever he is? I have noticed several people linking to him recently.

Optimum time for a Boost is based on results of guys in the misc Tinder forum and around the internet, as well as my own personal results. It's also the time the most Tinder users are online.

Optimum amount of photos is up in the air as it's hard to compare, but my theory is that it gives girls more time to evaluate you and see a photo they really like. Also can show more aspects of your personality. I'm sure there's a negligible difference between three and five, but two just seems too little, almost suspicious.

I'm not affiliated with Blackdragon. I just think he's one of the only guys that knows his stuff regarding online dating. Actually, Blackdragon says to use three photos, but I tend to discount his advice a bit because he uses messaging sites rather than apps.

Post: #38

Do any of you white guys feel like hispanic/mex girls have been giving you the cold shoulder more often in wake of Trump's election? I don't know if it's a coincidence but I'm a little suspicious. Not to turn this into a race thread or anything. Just an observation.

And Corsega I'd only say not being white is only limiting if you are below the looks threshold for a 5+/10 woman which is usually 7-8/10 for a guy.

It seems like in recent years higher smv women have become aware of the game movement and countered it by only going for the best looking guys especially online and extensively vetting every guy because they are terrified at the thought of giving it up to anything less than a "true/natural alpha" whatever that means. Remember when you could fake it until you made it? Men won't be able to counter back until we can spend a single day building a bot to automate every swipe/initial conversation then be able to set and forget it until we have serious leads delivered to us. Then women will be wasting their time trying to win the favor of our game bots while we go about our lives. It's nice to dream about how the tables could be turned in due time lol.

Post: #39

“Do any of you white guys feel like hispanic/mex girls have been giving you the cold shoulder more often in wake of Trump's election?”

Hell no. Game them like you would any other girl. Make them wear a maga hat while banging.


“I don't know if it's a coincidence but I'm a little suspicious. Not to turn this into a race thread or anything. Just an observation.”

It’s a coincidence.

And for the OP, if you are getting 54 matches per week and 2 meet ups, are you banging one of them?

Post: #40

(12-28-2017 03:20 AM)Razor Beast Wrote:  It seems like in recent years higher smv women have become aware of the game movement and countered it by only going for the best looking guys especially online and extensively vetting every guy because they are terrified at the thought of giving it up to anything less than a "true/natural alpha" whatever that means. Remember when you could fake it until you made it? Men won't be able to counter back until we can spend a single day building a bot to automate every swipe/initial conversation then be able to set and forget it until we have serious leads delivered to us. Then women will be wasting their time trying to win the favor of our game bots while we go about our lives. It's nice to dream about how the tables could be turned in due time lol.

That actually existed and I used it. It was an AI that learned from your actual swipes what kind of faces you liked, then would autoswipe for you based on your preferred face.

It would then send out openers for you customized based on the girl and what was in the photo.

Tinder sent them a cease and desist and they had to stop:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/artic...rom-tinder

https://www.bernie.ai/

(12-28-2017 03:43 AM)eradicator Wrote:  And for the OP, if you are getting 54 matches per week and 2 meet ups, are you banging one of them?

Yep, my lay rate per first date is just under 50%.

Agreed on the latina thing, latinas continue to be into me despite the political climate.

Post: #41

pretty good post overall, but guys gotta get out there and pick up girls in real life, not on apps. Use it as a supplement at most. The good stories, and the good girls aren’t sitting on tinder trying to find a match. Get out, improve your real life skills, and put aside the business like transactions and conversations that is dating apps today.

Post: #42

Do you need smartphone to do this, or is it possible totally online?

Also is each FB linked up to a different tinder premium account?

Post: #43

(12-29-2017 02:10 PM)No1 Wrote:  Do you need smartphone to do this, or is it possible totally online?

Also is each FB linked up to a different tinder premium account?

You need a smartphone to create the initial account.

You can have the same plus subscription on multiple accounts at once.

Post: #44

Lost me at white, then really lost me at San Fran being the hardest city in America for Tinder. I’m with Sourcecode: your competition are autistic people in tech. NYC, LA, Miami, I’d even say DC has to be harder than SF.

Invest in good photos and 80% of the work is done.

But this thread is a wake up call. Despite 2017 being my best notch year, 70% of those notches came from Tinder. That shit just does not count.

We need to start referencing Bang and Day Bang more in these forums.

Post: #45

(12-28-2017 03:49 AM)corsega Wrote:  That actually existed and I used it. It was an AI that learned from your actual swipes what kind of faces you liked, then would autoswipe for you based on your preferred face.

Oh wow... I was predicting this sort of thing as the next step in the technological arms-race of the sexes in online dating in this thread that was bashed as 'autistic' and it turns out it's already been done (or at least a piece of the total puzzle)???

You can bet this will NOT be the last of its kind.

Post: #46

(01-01-2018 10:44 PM)MaceTyrell Wrote:  Lost me at white, then really lost me at San Fran being the hardest city in America for Tinder. I’m with Sourcecode: your competition are autistic people in tech. NYC, LA, Miami, I’d even say DC has to be harder than SF.

Let's break this down:

NYC - best city in the US for casual sex. Great gender ratios, hot girls, competition is decent. Girls move here literally to "have fun".
DC - average, corporate, lots of SJW girls BUT great gender ratios. Literally the best gender ratio in the country - 115 girls aged 18-34 for every 100 guys. http://singlesatlas.com, verify for yourself.
Miami - incredibly hot girls, also good competition. But the girls are still hot and lots of foreigners looking to get some American dick.
LA - best competition in the country. Status plays - movie stars, actors, singers, etc. BUT also incredibly hot women.

SF - below average girls. Bad logistics and public transport. SJWs galore. Girls go out of their way to make themselves unfeminine and ugly. Women come from a background of misandry. Good competition. Read the post, I covered this. Many guys in tech are attractive and smart. Oh, and rich, by the way. Guys here buy Boosts and superlikes constantly, so if you're not constantly boosting you're getting pushed down the stack. I was just talking to girls this weekend visiting town who said "The guys here are cute and the girls are average."

SF is the hardest city in the country (except for MAYBE Los Angeles, but even then you at least see hot girls). I have traveled to and Tindered in 15+ North American cities and seen second-hand accounts of almost every major metropolitan area on the continent.

I could find you 90 reports of guys in the community that say the same thing. I could screenshot you comments from our RSD Inner Circle Facebook group saying the same thing, with guys visiting asking where all the girls over a 6 are found, and guys that live here just shaking our heads. In fact, you and Sourcecode are the only guys saying differently.

Post: #47

And many more guys in entertainment are attractive, rich, and actually have game. And they are in greater number in LA/Miami/NYC.

But this argument is pointless since I (and no one reading this thread) should be considering moving to a city just because it is “supposedly” marginally better for Tinder.

Congrats, you live in the “hardest city for Tinder” in the West.

Post: #48

And please point me to where there are all these women in NYC having casual sex in abundance. Trying to rely on online less lol.

Post: #49

(01-02-2018 12:21 AM)MaceTyrell Wrote:  And many more guys in entertainment are attractive, rich, and actually have game. And they are in greater number in LA/Miami.

But this argument is pointless since I (and no one reading this thread) should be considering moving to a city just because it is “supposedly” marginally better for Tinder.

You're not seeing the full picture. You're focused on the male competition, while not taking into consideration that the the high SMV girls cancel the high SMV guys out. Consider the Hypergamy chart:



Now imagine that Hypergamy chart in San Francisco. The top guy is lopped off, but the two top girls are also lopped off. So now the top guys in SF (tech millionaires, guys over 6'4", former frat chads, models) compete for the 7s and 8s, where in LA/Miami they would be competing for 9s and 10s.

The rest of us in SF slide down to the 6s, because there are so few girls above a 7.

(01-02-2018 12:26 AM)MaceTyrell Wrote:  And please point me to where there are all these women in NYC having casual sex in abundance. Trying to rely on online less lol.

Tinder (assuming your profile is completely maximized and you have adequate SMV) and bars. Goldmund doesn't seem to have trouble with the night scene.

Post: #50

I will say props to the part about burning leads to the ground. I will try this in 2018, instead of being impatient and deleting the ones that don't respond on the first message.