Post: #201

(02-18-2013 04:59 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 04:39 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  [quote='The Texas Prophet' pid='374159' dateline='1361219590']
Actually no because those people seem to be having too much fun. LA people like to look cool and posture at the club.

Touche.

Here is pic of a club with better ratios (and Chris Brown in the center posing), but everyone here seem to just want to stand around and look cool:

Now that is LA nightlife. Stiff and boring.

No one having fun.

Everyone really poorly dressed.

Even Chris Brown can't swoop because it is so bad.

(02-18-2013 04:39 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 03:33 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Brasilransom,

Definitely post more of your pics of LA nightlife. In fact, when you do, make a new thread and title it "LA Nightlife Pics."

Most guys who think of LA nightlife think of this:


When the reality is closer to this:

Actually no because those people seem to be having too much fun. LA people like to look cool and posture at the club.

That is a great point.

No where is nightlife more "stiff" than in Los Angeles. Maybe OC and San Diego are on par.

(Might have something do to with poor logistics and early last call?)

People just pose in those cities.

It is such a difference when you go to Miami Beach or NYC. People are having fun. Dancing. Laughing. Enjoying life.

And no where are people as glued to their phones as in LA, OC, and SD.

The more I think about it, Los Angeles represents everything terrible in American nightlife.

-----

By the way, I think this is the best and funniest thread on the forum since "Was this Beta?"

Post: #202

What the high end LA club scene often boils down to:

Quote:Club promoters may comp models, celebrities and whomever else can help create a vibe for the night -- and improve the male-female ratio, says Chris Paul, promoter for the Sayers Club and Voyeur Paul. A promoter "could know 10 cute 21-year-olds from the OC who don't know where else to go; he'll put them at a table with a spender," he says, adding "That guy gets cute girls around him all night."

-Los Angeles Times, "Nightclubs ride bottle service 'whales' to profits", 10/15/11, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/15/...20111015/2

Post: #203

(02-17-2013 10:34 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Part of the problem is we're comparing apples to oranges. You guys say New York, but you really mean Manhattan. Then you compare that to all of Los Angeles. A better comparison would be something like Manhattan to Santa Monica, or Manhattan to the (new) Downtown, or Williamsburg to Silverlake (which I might hand, to be perfectly frank, to Williamsburg).

(02-17-2013 10:46 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  South Bronx vs. South Central or Flushing Queens vs Anaheim

or Brooklyn vs. San Gabriel Valley...

Post: #204

Some Google search images of the hotter L.A. nightclubs. Certainly not the hyperbolic image war between gmanifesto and tuth, but for anyone wondering what it's really like this is pretty accurate:













Seem kind of...boring? Plain? Average? That's because it is. If you go to any "Hot" Hollywood nightclub, it's mostly a place for rich-kid, well-connected, wannabe or actual starlets to hang out, look cool, and posture. Forget about going to any Hollywood nightclub and seeing tons of really hot girls dancing and having fun. Not saying it never happens, just don't be surprised if you don't find it. It seems to happen randomly, and almost always at SBE venues. Usually standing around waiting for a rich Persian to pick them up.

IMO you're better off going to second or third tier clubs where people go to get sloshed and dance their ass off. Or places that pride themselves on bringing in world-class DJs, places like Exchange L.A. or Avalon. Last call might be at 1:45 P.M. but there's tons of drugs in both these places and Avalon goes until 4 A.M. some nights. The scene can be verrryyyy mixed though...

Post: #205

Reminds me of a quick trivia question I posed on the forums before:

Who is getting laid with the greatest quality and the least effort in LA?

Cool USC frat bros.

Post: #206

I don't understand the 'it's hard to get laid in LA' talk. Then again the nightclub world is where I feel most comfortable so perhaps that helps.

Everybody has their niche. I want to work on my daygame because I tend to neglect that.

Post: #207

(02-18-2013 06:30 PM)McQueensPlayboyRules Wrote:  I don't understand the 'it's hard to get laid in LA' talk. Then again the nightclub world is where I feel most comfortable so perhaps that helps.

Everybody has their niche. I want to work on my daygame because I tend to neglect that.

This thread is a bit of an exaggeration. Further, this thread is mostly a comparison to NYC.

Post: #208

Does anyone here go to Drais Hollywood? I went there back in 2010 and that place was poppin! Had to grease the bouncers and pay cover but it was fun. The ratio was pretty good and the talent was off the charts.

I was thinking about going back to LA this July but this thread is making me reconsider.

Post: #209

(02-18-2013 06:30 PM)McQueensPlayboyRules Wrote:  I don't understand the 'it's hard to get laid in LA' talk. Then again the nightclub world is where I feel most comfortable so perhaps that helps.

Everybody has their niche. I want to work on my daygame because I tend to neglect that.

Yes, it's hard to get laid in LA *relative* to other places. All you have to do is ask transplants. I've yet to meet a dude that said it's easier here than the place he left. And for guys that move here from Europe they'll report even more of a difficulty.

Of course there are guys that kill it here. No one says otherwise. We're talking about relative differences. Guys who consistently pull quality here are usually very well connected and have a great social circle. I can't see a dude just showing up here with no circle, running some mystery method on Hollywood girls and end up killing it. Maybe if he's a pretty boy and very stylish. If he's average forget it.

Post: #210

(02-18-2013 08:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 06:30 PM)McQueensPlayboyRules Wrote:  I don't understand the 'it's hard to get laid in LA' talk. Then again the nightclub world is where I feel most comfortable so perhaps that helps.

Everybody has their niche. I want to work on my daygame because I tend to neglect that.

Yes, it's hard to get laid in LA *relative* to other places. All you have to do is ask transplants. I've yet to meet a dude that said it's easier here than the place he left. And for guys that move here from Europe they'll report even more of a difficulty.

Of course there are guys that kill it here. No one says otherwise. We're talking about relative differences. Guys who consistently pull quality here are usually very well connected and have a great social circle. I can't see a dude just showing up here with no circle, running some mystery method on Hollywood girls and end up killing it. Maybe if he's a pretty boy and very stylish. If he's average forget it.

I think Tuth would even have to agree that NYC is way better for "colder" short stay Game than LA.

Personally, I could accomplish in 3 days in NYC what would take me a week and a half in LA, maybe longer.

And I am probably better connected in LA.

That is a significant difference between the two cities.

NYC is way more "Cold Game" friendly.

Post: #211

(02-18-2013 06:39 PM)rakishness Wrote:  Does anyone here go to Drais Hollywood? I went there back in 2010 and that place was poppin! Had to grease the bouncers and pay cover but it was fun. The ratio was pretty good and the talent was off the charts.

I was thinking about going back to LA this July but this thread is making me reconsider.

When Drais opened there was a line down Hollywood Blvd. Now its eh ok. I did pull a 9 asian baaaad chick from there couple of weekends ago.

Definitely NOT what it used to be. Very touristy because of it being at the W Hotel.

Post: #212

(02-16-2013 03:00 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 02:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Jesus...there are people that think the video was "offensive"??? I would think even feminists would laugh at it. Overall the interview seemed pretty light-hearted. The video is a caricature of stereotypical Hollywood/Westside LA women, but most stereotypes have a degree of truth to them and such women certainly exist in large numbers though they aren't entirely hard to avoid at the same time.

That was nothing - this is a lot worse, from a 'comedienne.' I can't stand these god damn 'alt-comedy' types. They're horrendously nerdy and not funny.

Quote:What's worse than not being able to rock it with a hot girl? Having to get busy with a gay dude-looks-like-a-lady. Which is a thing because you know how all gay men will have sex with anything cause they're gay? Because that's how gay people work. You just put a butthole in front of them and they're happy as clams! Gay people are funny cause they're gay and they do gay things! Jokes!

...

And the music cuts out completely. Just like a record scratch at a party! You know, like when something UNBELIEVABLE happens! Like overweight girls! Whoa! It's funny 'cause they're not rail thin! Who loves chubby girls? No one! Who saw GIRLS this weekend?! Who read Rex Reed's IDENTITY THIEF review? POINT PROVEN! Jokes!

Edit: I just searched Twitter ( https://twitter.com/search?q=%23womenofla&src=typd ), and NONE of the 'top Tweets' I've read so far about the video are critical - they're all admiring - and many of these tweets were from girls. You can always rely on the media to give a voice to an almost non-existent feminist opposition, and make them look way bigger than they are.

More from the makers: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment...5279000137 [chubby girl trigger warning] - '19th Amendment, overrated.'

"25 is too young to be in a committed relationship" "When you meet that ex years later, your heart races..."



That Huffington Post editor is one of the most androgynous and mewling males I have seen. I'm surprised he got past a first date with a girl. I figured he was gay initially, what with 'anal' being in his twitter handle.

The irony is the fame from this video is going to help this guy get laid.

Post: #213

(02-18-2013 08:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 06:30 PM)McQueensPlayboyRules Wrote:  I don't understand the 'it's hard to get laid in LA' talk. Then again the nightclub world is where I feel most comfortable so perhaps that helps.

Everybody has their niche. I want to work on my daygame because I tend to neglect that.

Yes, it's hard to get laid in LA *relative* to other places. All you have to do is ask transplants. I've yet to meet a dude that said it's easier here than the place he left. And for guys that move here from Europe they'll report even more of a difficulty.

Of course there are guys that kill it here. No one says otherwise. We're talking about relative differences. Guys who consistently pull quality here are usually very well connected and have a great social circle. I can't see a dude just showing up here with no circle, running some mystery method on Hollywood girls and end up killing it. Maybe if he's a pretty boy and very stylish. If he's average forget it.

I do see fairly regular guys scoring quality. I can't tell just from looking, but I'm confident that that dude did not cold approach her in a bar.

I christen it...

The 7 Ceiling™ of LA - to get anything above a 7 from cold approaching at night in Los Angeles is immensely more challenging. You will fail far more often, due to the insularity, selectivity and flakiness of girls rated 8 and higher. Anything less than a bang doesn't count either.

Tourists and recent transplants can be easier, if only because they just got here. I'd bet the ceiling applies to day game too, given my experience, but my day game experience is modest.

If you have a 7 bottom bitch that you like, going out can be pretty depressing because you're either trying and failing to get something better, or expending all this effort to get a girl that's probably worse than your current bottom bitch. At that point, it'd be wiser to focus on other hustles to improve the quality of your women. Unless you get a real kick out of fucking girls just once or twice.

Post: #214

(02-18-2013 06:58 AM)dk902 Wrote:  For the unfamiliar observer, can someone break down the basic tenets of 'bro game' as used by patrons of Sharkeez?

Post: #215

One more thing I wanted to say on this topic. Here is why I think ultimately NYC wins, even though I'm a lifelong Angelino who loves California. I think there's a pretty objective measure that makes it clear that NYC is the winner.

What would happen if you pick up NYC and LA and move them to the interior of the country? You could stick NYC in the midwest tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything about the character of the city, it would still attract visitors since nobody goes to NYC for the geography or weather. It stands on its own as a city. LA on the other hand is dependent on it's geography and weather as a major lure. If you stuck LA in the middle of Oklahoma, it wouldn't be LA, it would just be another Houston of Phoenix. LA can't stand on it's own as a world class city without the beach or weather. That's one major argument against LA being a true world class city. It's dependent on the accident of its location. Paris would be Paris no matter where in France it was located and people would visit just the same. Ditto for Moscow or Tokyo or Buenos Aires or Rome.

I'm not picking on LA. It's hardly the only place like this. Miami is another city that can't stand on its own. Pick up Miami and move it to the midwest and the place would suck big time. Without the beaches, harbor and weather the girls and money would leave and it would be just another sprawling non-descript American city. Internationally, Rio de Janeiro fits the bill as another city that wouldn't survive if it weren't for the accident of perfect location. Move Rio to the interior of Brazil and it would be just another Curitiba or Manaus and nobody would care about visiting the place for its own sake. NYC wouldn't suck no matter where you placed it as it's not dependant on weather and great geography to be attractive.

So in terms of this, NYC wins. Case closed. It can stand on its own two feet without the props of beaches and nice weather. NYC is world class, LA is really a second-tier city but gets treated as a first tier city due to the disproportionate influence of the film industry and high profile celebrities. Without that and the weather/geography, LA would be just a bigger Houston.

That said, I've learned to like LA, warts and all, even though I have my times when I want to GTFO. The geography and weather and the lifestyle have become part of the soul of LA and if you enjoy them then it may not matter if LA could stand on it's own without them. This view from Palos Verdes would make me seriously homesick if I ever left:

Post: #216

Speak that is a great picture from PV.

A rarely seen angle of LA also.

----

Now back to the original posters question:

The Style of The Top Tier Girls In Los Angeles:



The Style of Just Average Girls In New York City:

Post: #217

(02-18-2013 02:33 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  [size=large][b]Run of the Mill, Average NYC Day Game Targets:

Didn't know you considered Cristiano Ronaldo as an average target. Didn't know you swung that way G

Post: #218

(02-19-2013 01:13 PM)jammer Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 02:33 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  [size=large][b]Run of the Mill, Average NYC Day Game Targets:

Didn't know you considered Cristiano Ronaldo as an average target. Didn't know you swung that way G

Didn't even notice there was a guy in the picture.

I am kind of surprised you did.

Are you sure you are on the right forum?

Post: #219

(02-19-2013 08:56 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Speak that is a great picture from PV.

A rarely seen angle of LA also.

That is a great picture of LA.

---

(02-19-2013 01:25 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Didn't even notice there was a guy in the picture.

I also didn't notice Ronaldo the first time I looked at the picture! And, I am a Ronaldo fan.

Strange, sometimes we only see what we want to see!

Post: #220

(02-19-2013 02:46 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:56 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Speak that is a great picture from PV.

A rarely seen angle of LA also.

That is a great picture of LA.

---

(02-19-2013 01:25 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  Didn't even notice there was a guy in the picture.

I also didn't notice Ronaldo the first time I looked at the picture! And, I am a Ronaldo fan.

Strange, sometimes we only see what we want to see!

Hell, I looked at the picture 10 times, and I still don't see any guys in the picture.

Are you guys sure about that?

Post: #221

(02-17-2013 10:35 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 10:27 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Again with repeating the hyped myths.

(02-17-2013 09:24 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  LA has more guys than girls.

The [Los Angeles] male population is 1,173,364, and the female population is 1,182,630.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Data

Reference: http://www.maletofemaleratio.com/wiki/Ca...ngeles.htm

I think the relevant ratio is SINGLE men to SINGLE women.

Most studies that I have seen have New York (at least, Manhattan) with a more favorable ratio than LA, but I could be wrong.

I think ultimately the most important ratio is attractive single women to single men. Thats something no census data is gonna tell you or any of the surveys, you have to figure that out based on what you find attractive. That's why I don't put too much stock in the city x vs city ratio game.

Just like a player who's not interested in black chicks won't be able to take advantage of a ratio that favors guys in Atlanta.
I feel a cat that's heavily into or vibes well with Korean or Mexican chicks will have less issues with whatever the ratio is in LA because he will feel he's surrounded by plenty of potential talent. Alternatively, a dude that favors Dominican chicks or other Carribean females will have the same experience but in NYC.

Post: #222

Speakeasy - you ended the debate with your very strong point. I'm not sure if you thought of that independently or borrowed it from somewhere but I've never heard of LA and NYC being articulated in that way. You are spot-on in that if LA was put in the middle of the country no one would pay it any mind because its main draw is the weather and beaches. The city itself couldn't hold its own. I fully agree. Great point.

Post: #223

(02-19-2013 11:53 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Speakeasy - you ended the debate with your very strong point. I'm not sure if you thought of that independently or borrowed it from somewhere but I've never heard of LA and NYC being articulated in that way. You are spot-on in that if LA was put in the middle of the country no one would pay it any mind because its main draw is the weather and beaches. The city itself couldn't hold its own. I fully agree. Great point.

Not to get all political, but the government of California is like a hot cunt. She's constantly saying, "No matter what I do, you're going to put up with my shit, because I'm just that hot. Taxes, regulations, overpopulation... None of that shit matters, because I'm worth it." So is it any surprise when... dudes are only into her for her looks? In a not too distant past, LA was seen as a haven for the middle class. Hasn't been that way for at least 20 years now. Net domestic migration in CA is negative.

Funny thing is, NY's gov is the same, but they get to lean on the money entrenched there, I guess.

Post: #224

(02-18-2013 05:16 PM)basilransom Wrote:  What the high end LA club scene often boils down to:

Quote:Club promoters may comp models, celebrities and whomever else can help create a vibe for the night -- and improve the male-female ratio, says Chris Paul, promoter for the Sayers Club and Voyeur Paul. A promoter "could know 10 cute 21-year-olds from the OC who don't know where else to go; he'll put them at a table with a spender," he says, adding "That guy gets cute girls around him all night."

-Los Angeles Times, "Nightclubs ride bottle service 'whales' to profits", 10/15/11, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/15/...20111015/2

Some years back now a buddy of mine knew a promotor for Echo on Cahuenga in Hollywood. I think it was about a tier 3 club at the time, don't know what it is now as I don't hang in Hollywood anymore. He had a table for his boys that night and everyone got comped bottles. We joined the party and didn't have to pay for shit. They had some cute young girls from Orange Co that were chilling there with us. We rapped with them and drank, but at the end of the night, they went home to Orange County. Didn't even bother trying to get a number as I know it would've been a flake big time. Since I didn't pay for shit I didn't care, but I didn't feel like they were worth spending all that money just to have around our table as eye candy. Whatever.

Post: #225

Full disclaimer: I've only been as far west as Las Vegas so the following comparasion might be a bit off.

The biggest difference I've noticed between women from California and New York is the ratio of fake tits (and here I'm only thinking of the obvious DD's) which is something like 10:1 west/east.

So if you, like me, favor big juggs that's a definite plus for the West. However such surgery tend to have an equally proportional negative effect on a girl's personality as it has positive effect on her looks.

Also, there's a lot of chubby women getting big racks with no regard for the rest of the packag.