Post: #5876

I fully agree. Girls' options would be either bars, clubs, limited social circle or work/college. Instead, bitches can be as lazy as fat potato couches and still get dozens of matches daily. I do day game as well, and the bitches who tell me they have boyfriends, I see on Tinder days after. They have no motivation to treat a man respectfully, because the well gets replenishing twenty four seven. Online dating will become one of key demise of western countries due to inhibiting birth rate.

Post: #5877

All online dating apps have worsened in return on investment over the past few years as they've become more mainstream.

It's infuriating. Pathetic, thirsty men have saturated the marketplace. Couple this with women using the apps as time-killers and sources of entertainment, and you have a recipe for total frustration for even the hot guy with game.

Post: #5878

A fix of this is sorta the SA type thing, limiting users, but sadly there does have to be some limiting factor to the women on there as well, because tons of free joining women hurts the product too. A savvy poster who paid close attention to this (forgot who it was, maybe No6) said that about 5 years ago that was the case with a few sites --- you had to be approved by existing members and all parties, both male and female, passed a test to be admitted. That kept the "game" real and enjoyable until of course, monetization came in. Let me save you guys a lot of time --- hugely important question --- why does monetization matter?

Tons of dudes flood the market and they truly become the consumer, while the women become secondary, again with small hopes of random alpha, but wading through (let's say Tinder hopes) tons of beta payments to get a shot at swiping for a few dollars, but without a social risk or cost.

It's about extracting money from men, the consumer. Once this happens, it actually ruins the whole project, for both men and women, as everyone has quickly found out.

Post: #5879

Just made a Tinder. Hope it's worth it.

Post: #5880

(03-03-2017 01:29 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  A fix of this is sorta the SA type thing, limiting users, but sadly there does have to be some limiting factor to the women on there as well, because tons of free joining women hurts the product too. A savvy poster who paid close attention to this (forgot who it was, maybe No6) said that about 5 years ago that was the case with a few sites --- you had to be approved by existing members and all parties, both male and female, passed a test to be admitted. That kept the "game" real and enjoyable until of course, monetization came in. Let me save you guys a lot of time --- hugely important question --- why does monetization matter?

Tons of dudes flood the market and they truly become the consumer, while the women become secondary, again with small hopes of random alpha, but wading through (let's say Tinder hopes) tons of beta payments to get a shot at swiping for a few dollars, but without a social risk or cost.

It's about extracting money from men, the consumer. Once this happens, it actually ruins the whole project, for both men and women, as everyone has quickly found out.

BeautifulPeople.com I was part of the site, but the fuglies they let in now has made it worth an occasional log in every couple months just to chuckle. Good concept, bad execution.

Post: #5881

I think these dating apps have also made the standards for how men are supposed to look... crazy high!

If you aren't on the tip top of your looks game than forget about getting any decent quality. Looks have become everything. Thats why I prefer apps where you can at least message first and not this Tinder swiping crap. I prefer to read something about the girl at least.

Post: #5882

The only thing I don't like about Tinder is how many damn bots are on this thing. It's so damn annoying swiping left to a profile that is almost certainly a bot.

Post: #5883

I actually thought about joining back for a little while but you guys remind me of my frustration with Tinder. I am average in looks with a few good pictures and I was left hanging by fatties...

Abolishing it is impossible now, what would be great is an app that actually takes into account your game, it will benefit most of us here but I don't see how would it be implemented? The current technology is what is limiting such an innovation, with texting you can only accomplish so much.

Hopefully, the next technological revolution will benefit us. I am talking about Virtual and Augmented Reality, these kind of technologies seem to be more suited for us and could potentially capture more facets of a person. The way I see it; I put my glasses on, log into Tinder VR while I am taking a shit and here I am in a speed dating environment with all the girls in my city. Now we are talking; I have my voice back, my body language and my vibe. I game her like it's 1989, by the time I finish taking my shit, it's a match. Maybe?

Any thoughts on this?

Post: #5884

How's tinder on college campuses? Is the ROI good at Uni's?

Post: #5885

(03-03-2017 09:35 PM)Thrill Jackson Wrote:  How's tinder on college campuses? Is the ROI good at Uni's?

What ROI? Tinder is as low investment as you can possibly come.

Post: #5886

I'm getting back into Tinder after a long hiatus.

A few questions (in bold):

I'm 22. Would I be better off listing my age as 25? I'm open to women in the age range of 18-40, for casual purposes.

Back then, swiping every girl to the right was a popular strategy. Because of the ELO system, doing that these days can put you in the same ranking as a bot. How do you guys swipe? I swipe every girl who passes the "Would I bang if I was horny and she was naked on a bed in front of me?" test. I'm wondering if I should left-swipe girls who are far out of my league, or look like they're probably not into my type (I live in NYC), to optimize my ELO rating.

I created my new account yesterday (Friday night, fake FB and all). Swiped 100+ profiles (not everyone to the right, just the ones who pass the test). Is it a normal thing to not have any results (aside from 1 bot, 1 possibly real user) the 2nd day after? How long should I wait until I decide to edit my profile?

Post: #5887

(03-04-2017 01:24 PM)MathGuy Wrote:  I'm getting back into Tinder after a long hiatus.

A few questions (in bold):

I'm 22. Would I be better off listing my age as 25? I'm open to women in the age range of 18-40, for casual purposes.

Back then, swiping every girl to the right was a popular strategy. Because of the ELO system, doing that these days can put you in the same ranking as a bot. How do you guys swipe? I swipe every girl who passes the "Would I bang if I was horny and she was naked on a bed in front of me?" test.

I created my new account yesterday (fake FB and all). Swiped 100+ profiles (not everyone to the right, just the ones who pass the test). Is it a normal thing to not have any results (aside from 1 bot, 1 possibly real user) the day after? How long should I wait until I decide to edit my profile?

I've tried swiping right on everyone, using an auto-swiper, and swiping selectively. I would say just go ahead and do what you have been doing, which is to right swipe the girls that you would sleep with, and left the other ones. Don't just swipe right blindly.

I only got tinder about a year ago so I can't really compare it to many years ago, but even during this year it has really gone downhill. Depending on your look 1 or 2 matches a day is decent to good. The only thing I can recommend is to wait it out for a week or two and see how things go for you. Oh, and make sure you have the best pictures possible and a decent profile.

Post: #5888

From what I can tell, changing your pictures gives you a pretty decent boost.


I got a question for y'all in regards to Tinder ELO.

So I used to swipe right to everything like most people did, but I didn't know that punished your ELO and put you into bot territory until a month or two ago. Is it possible to work your way up? I've been now swiping selectively and I am wondering if it is worth just creating a new account altogether.

Post: #5889

@Heart Break Kid: It's funny and a bit weird, but I'm actually doing this experiment right now to test something that might help. I set my profile to look for women AND men, with the idea that many gay men will right swipe me, which will boost my ELO rating.

I'm doing it with an account I created yesterday. A couple hours ago, I used the Auto-Like feature on Flamite to match with 1000+ men and women. Normally that would place me in bot territory, but I speculate that the right-swipes from gay men will get me at least some exposure to real non-bot women.

I'll report back here with the details a few days from now. Now, my profile is admittedly pretty mediocre looking (light-skinned Filipino, not ripped, not very stylish, ok facial aesthetics - maybe a male 4/10 right now). The results some of you guys might get could be even better.

@StackGSman: Thanks for your input.

Post: #5890

(03-04-2017 09:50 PM)Heart Break Kid Wrote:  From what I can tell, changing your pictures gives you a pretty decent boost.


I got a question for y'all in regards to Tinder ELO.

So I used to swipe right to everything like most people did, but I didn't know that punished your ELO and put you into bot territory until a month or two ago. Is it possible to work your way up? I've been now swiping selectively and I am wondering if it is worth just creating a new account altogether.

You don't have to create a new account, just reset the one you have. I reset my account for the first time a few weeks ago and got a huge uptick in the number of matches I got (which I assume means that my ELO was reset).

Post: #5891

(03-04-2017 11:26 PM)MathGuy Wrote:  @Heart Break Kid: It's funny and a bit weird, but I'm actually doing this experiment right now to test something that might help. I set my profile to look for women AND men, with the idea that many gay men will right swipe me, which will boost my ELO rating.

I'm doing it with an account I created yesterday. A couple hours ago, I used the Auto-Like feature on Flamite to match with 1000+ men and women. Normally that would place me in bot territory, but I speculate that the right-swipes from gay men will get me at least some exposure to real non-bot women.

I'll report back here with the details a few days from now. Now, my profile is admittedly pretty mediocre looking (light-skinned Filipino, not ripped, not very stylish, ok facial aesthetics - maybe a male 4/10 right now). The results some of you guys might get could be even better.

@StackGSman: Thanks for your input.

That is very funny. Whatever yields the best results, I reckon.

Post: #5892

(03-05-2017 04:39 AM)StackGsMan Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 09:50 PM)Heart Break Kid Wrote:  From what I can tell, changing your pictures gives you a pretty decent boost.


I got a question for y'all in regards to Tinder ELO.

So I used to swipe right to everything like most people did, but I didn't know that punished your ELO and put you into bot territory until a month or two ago. Is it possible to work your way up? I've been now swiping selectively and I am wondering if it is worth just creating a new account altogether.

You don't have to create a new account, just reset the one you have. I reset my account for the first time a few weeks ago and got a huge uptick in the number of matches I got (which I assume means that my ELO was reset).

How do you reset your account?

Post: #5893

Is Bumble a better resource than Tinder, these days? Last time I checked, the latter just wasn't worth the investment

Post: #5894

(03-05-2017 02:12 PM)churros Wrote:  Is Bumble a better resource than Tinder, these days? Last time I checked, the latter just wasn't worth the investment

Country specific. Although Bumble for me has been terrible with a pool of maybe 10 girls before "running out", and usually the more "feminist" "independent" types.

Had one bumble lay, and she was a 5 at best, stick with Tinder.

Post: #5895

(03-05-2017 01:48 PM)Heart Break Kid Wrote:  

(03-05-2017 04:39 AM)StackGsMan Wrote:  

(03-04-2017 09:50 PM)Heart Break Kid Wrote:  From what I can tell, changing your pictures gives you a pretty decent boost.


I got a question for y'all in regards to Tinder ELO.

So I used to swipe right to everything like most people did, but I didn't know that punished your ELO and put you into bot territory until a month or two ago. Is it possible to work your way up? I've been now swiping selectively and I am wondering if it is worth just creating a new account altogether.

You don't have to create a new account, just reset the one you have. I reset my account for the first time a few weeks ago and got a huge uptick in the number of matches I got (which I assume means that my ELO was reset).

How do you reset your account?

Go to settings, and scroll to the very bottom. You will see a link that says delete my account. Once you have deleted you can just log back in and it will be like you have an entirely new account.

Warning***************

If you do this you will lose your tinder plus subscription (if you paid for it), and you will also lose all of the matches that you have. Everything else for the most part will stay the same (your pictures and profile, that is).

Post: #5896

No you won't lose your plus subscription. Just hit restore purchase.

Post: #5897

A quick reminder to you guys that Tinder is Hypergamy magnified to the max:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/clint-conway/2...re-creepy/

There were men here who experimented with other such accounts:


If you look like this, then you get likely the top 40-60% of women. You probably woud get 100%, but the bottom 40% don't think they have a chance or you find a few exceptions you are not their type.

You can also see the other pics he posted - a shirtless with tattoos:



Of course we know that his profile would work - 6"3 mentioned in the beginning.

He has just a few pics to start it going.

But the real gimmick lies in the messaging:









Total frontal direct approach - sure in some countries it may not work so well, but you would have to test it really.



Occasionally a girl reacts a bit coy, so he just responds with "Coffee?" and followed by "Number?"

Heh - Tinder for men equipped like that is as easy as Family guy tells it to be:





Most other men even - quite good-looking male 7s - have to grind waaaay more for quality poon.

But we have to clear up - the guy who made the profile knew Game or copied it well, the pics are top of the line, he is in a good age bracket for girls and his direct approach sealed the deal. I am sure there are some similar guys with bad pics, unoptimized look and way too nice guy approach who make it tougher for themselves.

Still - online dating is maximized hypergamy for women and the is why they like it. It feeds into their hamster tremendously leaving them with a high even if they don't bang anyone. Then if someone is actually hot and available enough, then they do bang him. And that someone is a guy like that who bangs 2 each of those every day, because getting laid with the power of the net is so easy. They may not be top quality, but age and youth make up a lot. A 19yo 7 is worth more than a 28yo 8-9 in my book.

Post: #5898

^^ note the dates in the messages. 2014 -- I think that was peak tinder year?

Zel's point remains valid in 2017 though. I just think the same guy would be having a much harder time now than 3 years ago.

Post: #5899

As I've said, 15 years ago, the only women who truly had unlimited options were legit 10s. Now 300 pound women with warts have unlimited options due to the advent of online dating and social media. It's a sad state of affairs. Every single woman on this garbage is being hit up by hundreds of guys a week. Imagine cold approach 15+ years ago. It must've been child's play.

Hypergamy through online dating/social media has made 3s think their 10s.

Post: #5900

I was cold approaching 15 years ago and it was not childs play haha. But then again I didn't have the game now than I had then.