Post: #1

You know the type.

They aren't ripped.
Typically pasty.
Balding or Bald.

And in terms of style, let's say you wouldn't be able to pick them out in a club, as they'd look like all the other t-shirt and jean wearing chodes posted up along the walls. Maybe some tacky jewelry and that Conan leather bracelet sourced from H&M

I'm sure dude's personal mental image is that of



when in reality he looks more like



Visually, these guys have very little going for them.

Yet to hear them tell it, they're bagging chicks like this on a bi-weekly basis



Roosh is a fairly decent looking guy, his swarthy looks aside.
Paul Janka, i've heard has been compared to a Young Kennedy.
Tucker Max is the stereotypical tall jock blonde doofus/asshole.
VK and Good Looking Loser are both meatheads.

^Each of these guys fits some archetype of a good looking guy.

But then there are just a whole bunch of other regular looking, if not somewhat ugly looking dudes out there that are selling products. e-books, books, smart phone apps, web seminars, bootcamps, personal coaching.

Look wise they seriously run the gamut.
________________

The typical student of the game runs these questions through their heads

Can I believe them?
Can I believe what they say?
Can I trust their philosophy? strategy? Their tactics?

To me, that's pretty much a boring question.
There's really not much to explore there.

What happens when the ugly game guru tries to square his "ugliness" and his "success"?

If an ugly guy can get laid with attractive women on a fairly regular basis, and isn't paying them to do so, can it be anything other than game?

So why do these game gurus set limits on themselves and limits on their readers and prospective clients?

"Game works for me, but there are limits to what game can do."

Or you'll hear guys talk say something, "Game basically adds a +2 to your SMV"

They'll say this to you.
You know what they look like.
But they'll claim they just bagged some 19 year old Czech chick "who could be a model"

The numbers never add up to me.

And they never seem to add the #'s up.

Meanwhile, they're steady telling you that the best is not attainable.
Not even for themselves...whilst they do it anyway.

Dissonance of ugly game gurus.

WIA

Post: #2

Could this pertain to the analogy of setting "low expectations" at first while then trying to exceed those goals once their game & presence evolve?

Post: #3

(09-16-2014 01:47 PM)Brosemite Wrote:  Could this pertain to the analogy of setting "low expectations" at first while then trying to exceed those goals once their game & presence evolve?

Not that I can tell.

I very much doubt that the gurus are playing the "long con" on a transient audience.

I very much doubt the cunning and guile of a bunch of guys that seem to be making up it as they go along, relying on comments and news of the day to dictate their content.

WIA

Post: #4

(09-16-2014 01:22 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  You know the type.

They aren't ripped.
Typically pasty.
Balding or Bald.

And in terms of style, let's say you wouldn't be able to pick them out in a club, as they'd look like all the other t-shirt and jean wearing chodes posted up along the walls. Maybe some tacky jewelry and that Conan leather bracelet sourced from H&M

I'm sure dude's personal mental image is that of



when in reality he looks more like



Visually, these guys have very little going for them.

Yet to hear them tell it, they're bagging chicks like this on a bi-weekly basis



Roosh is a fairly decent looking guy, his swarthy looks aside.
Paul Janka, i've heard has been compared to a Young Kennedy.
Tucker Max is the stereotypical tall jock blonde doofus/asshole.
VK and Good Looking Loser are both meatheads.

^Each of these guys fits some archetype of a good looking guy.

But then there are just a whole bunch of other regular looking, if not somewhat ugly looking dudes out there that are selling products. e-books, books, smart phone apps, web seminars, bootcamps, personal coaching.

Look wise they seriously run the gamut.
________________

The typical student of the game runs these questions through their heads

Can I believe them?
Can I believe what they say?
Can I trust their philosophy? strategy? Their tactics?

To me, that's pretty much a boring question.
There's really not much to explore there.

What happens when the ugly game guru tries to square his "ugliness" and his "success"?

If an ugly guy can get laid with attractive women on a fairly regular basis, and isn't paying them to do so, can it be anything other than game?

So why do these game gurus set limits on themselves and limits on their readers and prospective clients?

"Game works for me, but there are limits to what game can do."

Or you'll hear guys talk say something, "Game basically adds a +2 to your SMV"

They'll say this to you.
You know what they look like.
But they'll claim they just bagged some 19 year old Czech chick "who could be a model"

The numbers never add up to me.

And they never seem to add the #'s up.

Meanwhile, they're steady telling you that the best is not attainable.
Not even for themselves...whilst they do it anyway.

Dissonance of ugly game gurus.

WIA

Krauser huh

Post: #5

(09-16-2014 02:04 PM)pheonix500000 Wrote:  Krauser huh

Owen Cook, Tom Terero, I can find all sorts of guys that fit this mold.

If Roissy ever posted a picture, I'd expect to see the same sort of disagreement with reality.

WIA

Post: #6

So what is the actual point you're making?

Post: #7

I could see the point being less attractive guys are probably more likely to follow the teachings of a less physically attractive gurus because they feel something in common.

Now the gurus need to temper their less attractive students' expectations because no more than a tiny fraction will put in the work and overcome the constant rejections to hone their craft, build their confidence, and find their fishbowl.

It is no coincidence Day Game gurus are often less good looking. That is the environment where they can achieve the highest quality results with the hand they were dealt.

Post: #8

(09-16-2014 02:20 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 02:04 PM)pheonix500000 Wrote:  Krauser huh

Owen Cook, Tom Terero, I can find all sorts of guys that fit this mold.

If Roissy ever posted a picture, I'd expect to see the same sort of disagreement with reality.

WIA

So what's your point? +2 in SMV for the general Student of Game and way more from Master PUAs?

Duh - no surprise - maximizing your look and delving deep into any skill produces results which are superior to the average Game student. If anyone has a very similar genetic baseline to a not-so-good-looking PUA, he cannot expect to attain his level unless he puts in a very equal amount of work. And even that is not entirely realistic, because of other factors like mental faculties, emotional baggage, inner Game etc. which make comparisons difficult.

Game "Masters" should in the best constellation be guys who have mastered that skill so far, that most guys can learn from them and become better at Game depending on their predisposition and desire to improve. The same is true with all other teachers of any craft and skill.

Post: #9

Any other ugly gurus aside from Tyler Durden, Krauser and Torrero?

Post: #10

(09-16-2014 03:50 PM)LemonDrink Wrote:  Any other ugly gurus aside from Tyler Durden, Krauser and Torrero?

Jeffy/Jlaix, Yad, all the dudes at simple pickup.

There is no end to bald skinny guys, pudgy white dudes, goofy looking Asian guys promoting game.

That's the norm. Let me repeat, the guy who isn't a pretty boy is the norm.

It's the undercurrent of the "you can't learn game from a good looking guy" post.

WIA

Post: #11

Ok. I'm not sure where the "krauser is ugly" came from, mind. Ask people who've met me. I'm decent-looking. Not good-looking, but I've never had a dog run away and hide behind the couch.

Post: #12

(09-16-2014 02:59 PM)Krauser Wrote:  So what is the actual point you're making?

If a less than average looking guy pulls fine tail regularly, then all the talk about anyone's natural limit is bullshit.

Guys talking about physical sexual market value routinely ignore evidence in front of them. Unless of course they see what they do is parasitic in nature, and all of their success is unique and could never be reproduced, in particular by their similarly situated readers and fans.

So If they're so wrong about obvious things within their own lives, can their judgment about anything be trusted?

WIA

Post: #13

(09-16-2014 03:29 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  I could see the point being less attractive guys are probably more likely to follow the teachings of a less physically attractive gurus because they feel something in common.

Now the gurus need to temper their less attractive students' expectations because no more than a tiny fraction will put in the work and overcome the constant rejections to hone their craft, build their confidence, and find their fishbowl.

It is no coincidence Day Game gurus are often less good looking. That is the environment where they can achieve the highest quality results with the hand they were dealt.

Most of us are less than good looking. Given how picky women are this shouldn't factor all that much into anything.

But the bigger problem is guys in the game, men who are exceptions to the rule, insist on assortative mating. 5's with 5's and 9's with 9's.

There's a certain nutrients hopelessness, resignation to one's fate that is rampant in modern day game.

It's reductionist and anti intellectual.

WIA

Post: #14

Post: #15

Not getting a lot of love here Krauser! I feel for you...

Post: #16

I'll also just add that most inherently good looking guys will be getting enough girls that they probably don't think about the need to game that much. Every now and again they 'get lucky' and they're happy with that. That drive that sets a lot of less good looking people to get laid is what brings them to game (or the extremely horny good looking guys, or the ambitious fine looking guys - both are rarer though, as they lack the same impetus as the uglies).

Post: #17

(09-16-2014 03:29 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  It is no coincidence Day Game gurus are often less good looking. That is the environment where they can achieve the highest quality results with the hand they were dealt.

Also, if you're an average dude approaching a girl in the daylight when she's stone cold sober, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. Because if you go by their bullshit theory she's even more capable of seeing your average-ness. no darkness, no smoke, no alcohol, no music, no dancing.

So how do you bag a chick above your punching weight when she's fully aware of your lack of oomph In the looks department?

Just playing the odds? Or could it be that you're thinking about it wrong? Or maybe you don't understand how all girls or how this particular girl sees your SMV?

WIA

Post: #18

How does looks work for men again? Either you are good looking or you are not? How does it work (pulling lizards) if one is average?

Post: #19

(09-16-2014 04:58 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 03:29 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  It is no coincidence Day Game gurus are often less good looking. That is the environment where they can achieve the highest quality results with the hand they were dealt.

Also, if you're an average dude approaching a girl in the daylight when she's stone cold sober, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. Because if you go by their bullshit theory she's even more capable of seeing your average-ness. no darkness, no smoke, no alcohol, no music, no dancing.

So how do you bag a chick above your punching weight when she's fully aware of your lack of oomph In the looks department?

Just playing the odds? Or could it be that you're thinking about it wrong? Or maybe you don't understand how all girls or how this particular girl sees your SMV?

WIA

But lizards are delusional and they create images in their minds based on how you feel. I remember hanging out with a few of my lizard friends in the UK. A bunch of Danes and a Polack. We were watching tv and Beckham was on. One of the lizards said "He's quite good looking but he spoils it when he opens his mouth".

It's really up to a man to create that image for a lizard. With practice he can help her create the image in her mind in order for him to get to lay.

All you need to do is pique the sexual interest. All that good looks stuff is still media created.

Post: #20

I think it's a fallacy to assume that there's a) a universal standard for good looks, b) looks are distributed on a bell curve, c) there's nothing you can do about them.

Proper grooming, style, personal hygiene, posture, fitness, weight, facial expression, etc. will put the vast majority of guys aged 18-38 somewhere in the 6-8 range (read: decent, bangable) for some women (and some of those women will probably be 8s). Likewise, most chicks age 16-28 would be at least 6s if not 7s for a good portion of men if they were in decent shape and primped an appropriate amount.

Once you start bringing other things to the table like personality, lifestyle, and status the sky is really the limit. Fortunately most dudes are too lazy to really get their shit together so there's plenty of ways for 'average' guys to do better than they might think.

Everybody is here because their parents found each other hot enough to bang. We are genetically predisposed to be bangable - don't fuck up your genetics and you'll be fine.

Post: #21

Not sure what the point of this thread is either.

Post: #22

Maybe there should be a beauty contest with WIA as the judge.

Post: #23

(09-16-2014 04:27 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  ...

That's the norm. Let me repeat, the guy who isn't a pretty boy is the norm.

It's the undercurrent of the "you can't learn game from a good looking guy" post.

WIA

Yeah - no surprise there given the law of averages and the fact that less-than-model-guys had to work for it and became finally good at it.

However some good-looking guys do give good advice despite coming from easier grounds.

Otherwise if you look at it this way: Since most guys are average or maybe slightly above average due to optimized look, that would in return mean that their advice would not help a truly busted or really ugly guy. This is of course not true, since most guys have enough common sense to understand that it is more difficult for that man and he has to adjust his Game accordingly:

   

Though Louis C.K. has severely un-optimized look and if he lost weight, shaved his head & grew a manly beard, he would be a fairly decent looking dude.

Post: #24

Seems you're casting wide net, WIA. For example: Owen Cook has been on a long, well-documented journey since 2002. These days he's more about self-improvement than focusing on chicks. I don't doubt he gets girls, but he would probably admit that less experienced but younger and better-looking guys can get as good or better results than him. Don't see him pulling the wool over anyone's eyes.

Then there's Krauser, also documented his results pretty well. No snake oil there either. Buy his books or don't buy them.

Then there are indeed a bunch of lesser and sometimes pretty shady looking dudes, some of whom are probably losers or charlatans. That's the way it goes.

If you were born short/ugly and reached adulthood being awkward you will never have the "cool" air of some other guys. That's the hand you were dealt. You can still get good results with girls and in life, and you can find role models and teachers who fit your needs.

Post: #25

(08-31-2014 08:35 AM)Krauser Wrote:  

(08-30-2014 01:50 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  The best game advice comes from average dudes with above-average results. End of story.

This. "Game" is about outperformance.

Ugly/Average-looking gurus give us a glimpse of what is possible when great technical performance (game) is added onto one's base SMV. The 'limit' I guess most guys refers to is the natural limit to which you can optimize your SMV considering genetics, age, race, location, personality quirks and other factors that may be unchangeable.

It's an inspiration when gurus use game to multiply their perceived SMV tenfold. At that point, it doesn't even matter what the limit is to the maximum quality you can pull. If you're willing to put in the work, sustain some bruises and shed some blood, you'll always be doing better than you did before.