Post: #1

Ran an experiment a few months ago, created 4 different profiles

Me (I'd say I'm average looking. low body fat face, lean, athletic and average height):
I unoccasionaly receive messages, rarely any profile views. I often have to message first, 15% would give me their numbers, 25% would reply but give me hard time getting anywhere, 60% would ignore me

6/10 white guy from google images:
Similar results as me.

Good looking guy (8+/10):
Lots of profile views, picture likes, meet requests and messages. Girls I message first are very likely to respond. Saying "DTF?" worked on 50% of girls that messaged the me first.

Slightly above average girl:
20+ messages upon posting a status. Insane amount of profile views over a month. Lots of photo likes, comments and meet requests. Far more than the good looking guy.

My conclusion: Unless you are in the top 10-20% of looks, online dating is a waste of time. No game is involved, just look at tinder, the first thing you do is judge the profile pic. 100% looks.

I not trying to be negative, just realistic. Competition is tough as women have infinite guys to choose from because the guys on the top 10-20% are willing to stick their dicks on anything. Can you prove me wrong?

Post: #2

This thread is worthless without pictures of the people you used (yourself excluded).

(03-10-2014 05:57 AM)NothingIsRealLife Wrote:  Good looking guy (8+/10):
Lots of profile views, picture likes, meet requests and messages. Girls I message first are very likely to respond. Saying "DTF?" worked on 50% of girls that messaged the me first.

50% of girls you messaged on that account responded positively to just DTF? Even for a "male 8+" I find that figure hard to believe. Post the pictures you used.

Post: #3

(03-10-2014 06:11 AM)Deluge Wrote:  This thread is worthless without pictures of the people you used (yourself excluded).

(03-10-2014 05:57 AM)NothingIsRealLife Wrote:  Good looking guy (8+/10):
Lots of profile views, picture likes, meet requests and messages. Girls I message first are very likely to respond. Saying "DTF?" worked on 50% of girls that messaged the me first.

50% of girls you messaged on that account responded positively to just DTF? Even for a "male 8+" I find that figure hard to believe. Post the pictures you used.

50% of the girls that messaged me FIRST. This is a rough estimate.

This was done several months ago and I can't remember which pics I used. But if you really need something to compare yourself with, here are similar pics to what i've used if i can remember well:

Average looking guy


Above average girl


Good looking guy

Post: #4

There absolutely is game involved in online dating. I've had the same photos in my profile for 3 years, and during that time my response rate skyrocketed from 25% to 75%. Closing rate (how many responses result in moving the conversation to a meet, number or at least skype) has vastly improved too, from some 10% to almost 50%. Once your game becomes tight, sky is the limit.

Post: #5

If looks are all that count, and it is important, then how about figuring out exactly what kind of pictures do well?

Post: #6

(03-10-2014 08:33 AM)berserk Wrote:  If looks are all that count, and it is important, then how about figuring out exactly what kind of pictures do well?

If we're talking about looks, online dating isn't much different from real life dating
- Good fashion sense, if the girl likes your essence she will be more receptive
- If you have an aesthetic body, show it off, there are some girls that would bang you just for your body alone
- Good lighting and camera angle to show off your best features
- Last but not least, a pretty face, but you can't do much to change that

The best thing you could do is not waste time on online dating and master game IRL

Post: #7

Before you make posts like this, you really should get a sense of the board.

There are dozens of more in depth posts on the subject, all of which go much deeper into how to "hack" online dating. In essence you've been proved wrong over hundreds of replies.

I'm generally suspicious of newbie posters that just offer unsolicited analysis and so called knowledge. It's like showing up to a classroom and announcing yourself professor.

WIA

Post: #8

Quote:My conclusion: Unless you are in the top 10-20% of looks, online dating is a waste of time. No game is involved, just look at tinder, the first thing you do is judge the profile pic. 100% looks.

BS. I feel I'm completely average and I clean up at online dating. Soup has seen me so maybe he can tell you if I'm some greek god or something but I think I'm totally average and I clean up. I do as well as anyone on this board except maybe that dc1000 guy.

Online game consists of (in order):
1. Great Photos (my photos aren't even that great, but my message game is super tight)
2. Opening message that gets a response
3. Tight messaging, witty-funny writing skills
4. Getting the prospect offline ASAP
5. Good logistics or running Tuth's 1st date recipe
6. Profile

I have compiled all of this forum's collective wisdom into a PDF word document along with Bravo1's online dating thread at the MMA forums and I am going to release a book here within the next month or two.

MattC has a book that is worth checking out, as well. He covers all the basics but mine will go a little more in depth.

Post: #9

I agree with Farmageddon.

Post: #10

It also depends what age you are/targeting. If you're young and obviously targeting young girls id only use tinder/hot or not style apps as ive found okc/pof to be a waste of time with the girls on there only looking for validation not actual meets in the real world.

Post: #11

(03-10-2014 08:13 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  There absolutely is game involved in online dating. I've had the same photos in my profile for 3 years, and during that time my response rate skyrocketed from 25% to 75%. Closing rate (how many responses result in moving the conversation to a meet, number or at least skype) has vastly improved too, from some 10% to almost 50%. Once your game becomes tight, sky is the limit.

oh, what did you do to get this change?

Post: #12

Quote:oh, what did you do to get this change?

Without having heard his explanation I would say he learned how to write an opening message that gets a response, most likely has a few stock messages that he responds with, and moves the interaction offline ASAP. Then it's just normal game as usual.

Post: #13

(03-10-2014 06:37 AM)NothingIsRealLife Wrote:  Good looking guy

Your "good looking guy" looks like a homo to me. Not sure if srs.

Post: #14

(03-10-2014 03:50 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 06:37 AM)NothingIsRealLife Wrote:  Good looking guy

Your "good looking guy" looks like a homo to me. Not sure if srs.

So many chicks love homos... hipster chicks especially. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see a guy like that get mad pussy.

Post: #15

I think it depends somewhat on what site you are using. I tried match.com and running delicioustacos game and was really over gaming the girls initially and had to scale it back. By the way, match.com seems like a graveyard of dead/inactive dating profiles, and I would not wish it on my worst enemy(not that I have enemies, but I would not recommend match.com for men)

Post: #16

Which site did you use?

Post: #17

(03-10-2014 04:54 PM)philly22 Wrote:  Which site did you use?

I forgot to mention that, another important thing. The site is called tagged.com which are used mostly by young people (16-19 year olds). I'm not sure how much this changes for people interacting with 21-35 year olds but I just assumed that It can't be that different.

(03-10-2014 03:50 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 06:37 AM)NothingIsRealLife Wrote:  Good looking guy
[PIC]

Your "good looking guy" looks like a homo to me. Not sure if srs.

Found this guy from google images after searching "good looking guy". He was on a website, the title of the article was "10 of the hottest guys on instagram". Turns out he's instagram famous, this guy is getting mad poon.

Post: #18

(03-10-2014 04:58 PM)NothingIsRealLife Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 04:54 PM)philly22 Wrote:  Which site did you use?

I forgot to mention that, another important thing. The site is called tagged.com which are used mostly by young people (16-19 year olds). I'm not sure how much this changes for people interacting with 21-35 year olds but I just assumed that It can't be that different.

You are assuming that women who are 18 are the same as women who are 30? Have you ever heard of a biological clock? Women in their early 30s are some of the hardest to game...

Quote:

(03-10-2014 03:50 PM)Deluge Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 06:37 AM)NothingIsRealLife Wrote:  Good looking guy
[PIC]

Your "good looking guy" looks like a homo to me. Not sure if srs.

Found this guy from google images after searching "good looking guy". He was on a website, the title of the article was "10 of the hottest guys on instagram". Turns out he's instagram famous, this guy is getting mad poon.

This should read "if this dude was straight, he would be swimming in a sea of pussy"

Post: #19

If I up my age and income, younger girls look me up.

If I swipe right furiously, I get lots of high ratings and unsolicited messages from people I would never message.

If I write a damn interesting profile, I'll have 3-4 unsolicited messages a week and a guaranteed view (maybe 20% reply) from a targeted message I send.

If I sign off and just go out and approach I wouldn't have to waste my time with all of the above. More power to you guys who have the patience for this.

Post: #20

I'm sorry but I just can't see any man creating fake profiles to research better ways to attract women online.
I mean profile content is one thing but using another mans pics isn't gonna apply.
Putting the time and energy of grabbing other guys photos and making dupe profiles for online pussy seems like, you can't work with yourself.
If its not me then I simply don't care for what others guys looks can land them, it simply would not matter physically.

I'm stuck with the tunnel vision of the looks I have and what I can attract.
If a company paid me for such research that's different.