Post: #76

(12-04-2017 06:52 PM)Putin Closes Wrote:  If your over 30 create a new account and set your age to late 20s if you can pull it off. Seems like 30 is a arbitrary number girls in their young 20s put or even lower. I know I set mine at 27.

And the girl you cold approached probably has tinder if she's in the west. Fact of life these days. If location independent might want to move somewhere tinder is not popular such as Japan.

If a girl online ain't putting out by date 2/3 means she's probably getting side dick. Id put my tinder ONS rate vs 2nd date at 90 percent. Either I bang or dont get the bang.

It's not top 1-2 percent probably around 20 percent which means if you learn how to make an awesome profile through compelling pictures gives you a reasonable chance to be in that top 20. You definitely don't need to look like Dwayne Johnson.

So, my buddy goes down south to Cuba/Mexico/Brazil etc. On tinder, he just smashes everything. He returns to America and he cannot even get a 6 to coffee date him. Meanwhile, over seas, he is banging model looking women. It is ridiculous that level of E standards when he is not a bad looking guy. [/u]

Post: #77

(12-04-2017 05:20 PM)TheBMan Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:30 AM)Steelex Wrote:  IMO, online dating is 100 percent about looks. The only reason you even read a girls profile is to try and come up with a good message and guage how easy it'll be to bang her.

Girls are only reading for disqualifiers. Your looks are the qualifier.

The closer you are to average, the less action you're going to get. This is because there actually are a LOT of good looking guys on these sites flaunting their shit. Rich guys, tall guys, built guys with tats, rich tall guys who are built with tats, ect...

If your claim to fame is that you look good in a button down and have a picture with you and your golden retriever, you better step your shit up because you're not even in the same league as the guys who are crushing it on there.

There are guys on these sites who mow through these girls like it's a full time job. It's kind of unreal.

Goes back to my theory - the top 1 or 2% are feasting on a pussy buffet the rest of us cant possibly imagine

Guys who can't get girls out from online always blame looks or money or something they have no control over. Look in the mirror. It's like the old excuses from guys who couldn't get laid at clubs, 'She's bitchy, I'm too short, she's a gold-digger, she probably likes 'roid freaks, she must date male models, she only dates guys with coke, etc, etc.'

The game done changed. Step it up. The problem with all of your failed pickups is you.

Post: #78

(12-06-2017 10:41 PM)DonnyGately Wrote:  Guys who can't get girls out from online always blame looks or money or something they have no control over. Look in the mirror. It's like the old excuses from guys who couldn't get laid at clubs, 'She's bitchy, I'm too short, she's a gold-digger, she probably likes 'roid freaks, she must date male models, she only dates guys with coke, etc, etc.'

The game done changed. Step it up. The problem with all of your failed pickups is you.

There is definitely some truth here but, you do not understand nor can you comprehend the level of despair some blokes are coming from. I am talking years of snubbing from women, emasculated, cucked, flaked, and ghosted on. I know a few guys who got accused of rape and they are fucked up psychologically from the woman a decade thereafter. I remember the one guy chasing a cocaine head just because she was some wannabe model (meant, she did webcame shit lol). Buddy chases her around the city, begs for dates, buys her expensive shit, and walks in on her getting gang banged by a coke dealer.

Obviously, I think spine goes a long way but, if you were to have facial disfigurement, cystic acne as in, your face is cratered like the moon, and or you are mangled in terms of SMV 5 or below, shit genetics, you likely would have a different tune to play.

I have at times wondered what if I was higher in the dominance hierarchy, deviations of a point or even a half point in terms of SMV. Then again, I acknowledge how gross my dating exp has been to date now. God forbid I were lower then my current standing is now.

The one and only mate I know who has NEVER HAD A DRY SPELL is a model. His standards are below his shoe so, cratered SMV, single moms, and other low status women hitting the wall are not missed. Then again, he will fuck models, pageant winners, and local actresses. By product of winning the genetic lottery. Not game. Then again, the guy is completely comfortable in his own skin.

Post: #79

(12-05-2017 11:44 PM)meetjoeblack Wrote:  [quote='HankMoody' pid='1691541' dateline='1512007762']

Bumble imho is a better alternative. She matches, must msg or it unmatches meaning, she must at the very least msg you once. If she goes ghost or no contact, NEXT SET.

I have read a few good things about Bumble recently. A workmate who does part-time modelling recommended it to me as her friends are apparently on it.

I like the sound of the automatic deletion of passive women who are just swiping as I deleted a lot of matches from tinder owing to solipsistic passivity and wrecked my ELO score in the process.

Post: #80

(12-07-2017 12:33 AM)meetjoeblack Wrote:  There is definitely some truth here but, you do not understand nor can you comprehend the level of despair some blokes are coming from.

I also think men overexaggerate how many women view online dating as a success (based on THEIR criteria). Sure, there are thots on the carousel, but a lot of women want more than just a pump-and-dump and they're not getting it.

You can see how the two are merely dysfunctional flipsides of the coin. Guys have to learn how to trigger instant attraction with all women before they bite and women who want more than pump-and-dumps would be better off if they didn't just knee-jerk right-swipe guys with shirtless six-pack selfies who will pump-and-dump them. It's a chicken-and-the-egg dilemma and why the hackneyed phrase "looking for love in all the wrong places" was invented.

It just seems to us that women are better off because they're getting a steady stream of sex but they simply don't value it the way we do.

That's not to say women don't experience an initial euphoria when they first get on and see the degree of thirst, but before you know it they are changing their profile full of qualifiers like "not looking for a hookup" which is a codeword for "I've just been pumped and dumped by a dozen playas."

So for anyone navigating online dating you are primarily dealing with women who are pretty far down the line of being embittered but they feel they have no alternative to sticking it out. Therefore you deal with a lot of Spanish Inquisition BS when breaking the ice which is no fun.

Post: #81

(12-07-2017 12:33 AM)meetjoeblack Wrote:  [quote='DonnyGately' pid='1695478' dateline='1512618072']

The one and only mate I know who has NEVER HAD A DRY SPELL is a model. His standards are below his shoe so, cratered SMV, single moms, and other low status women hitting the wall are not missed. Then again, he will fuck models, pageant winners, and local actresses. By product of winning the genetic lottery. Not game. Then again, the guy is completely comfortable in his own skin.

This is me to a T.

All pussy can be fun, even ugly pussy. You gotta transcend the visual. You never know what tricks she developed as adaptive mrchanisms.

Post: #82

https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tin...df370a6e9a

Must read for anyone, a difference of good photos can make your likes 10x higher or lower.

Post: #83

Smiling made a huge difference in Tinder fo me. I was adept of the "serious bad boy face" and I got almost no matches, 1 smilling picture changed it all, and it's not a very high quality one.

Post: #84

(12-07-2017 09:19 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 12:33 AM)meetjoeblack Wrote:  There is definitely some truth here but, you do not understand nor can you comprehend the level of despair some blokes are coming from.

I also think men overexaggerate how many women view online dating as a success (based on THEIR criteria). Sure, there are thots on the carousel, but a lot of women want more than just a pump-and-dump and they're not getting it.

You can see how the two are merely dysfunctional flipsides of the coin. Guys have to learn how to trigger instant attraction with all women before they bite and women who want more than pump-and-dumps would be better off if they didn't just knee-jerk right-swipe guys with shirtless six-pack selfies who will pump-and-dump them. It's a chicken-and-the-egg dilemma and why the hackneyed phrase "looking for love in all the wrong places" was invented.

It just seems to us that women are better off because they're getting a steady stream of sex but they simply don't value it the way we do.

That's not to say women don't experience an initial euphoria when they first get on and see the degree of thirst, but before you know it they are changing their profile full of qualifiers like "not looking for a hookup" which is a codeword for "I've just been pumped and dumped by a dozen playas."

So for anyone navigating online dating you are primarily dealing with women who are pretty far down the line of being embittered but they feel they have no alternative to sticking it out. Therefore you deal with a lot of Spanish Inquisition BS when breaking the ice which is no fun.

I often wonder how many shitty dates women have had to go on w/weird dudes who had a good social media profile

Post: #85

http://worst-online-dater.tumblr.com/pos...xperiments

There is some really good info in here

Post: #86

(11-29-2017 11:38 PM)TheBMan Wrote:  My theory is that the top 1-2% of guys on tinder, who are in the right age range, 6' or above, well built, w/great pics, have a pussy buffet unlike anything mankind has ever seen before, while everyone else is pretty much fucked.

It's so true. But if you complain about that truth, you'll reduce your already low chances of getting serious interest to a small fraction of that. Go figure! Sucks being a guy in 2017, unless of course you happen to be one of the chosen few. The remaining 98% would all be better off 10 years ago and earlier. The difference between then and now is dramatic.

Post: #87

(12-07-2017 12:33 AM)meetjoeblack Wrote:  The one and only mate I know who has NEVER HAD A DRY SPELL is a model. His standards are below his shoe so, cratered SMV, single moms, and other low status women hitting the wall are not missed. Then again, he will fuck models, pageant winners, and local actresses. By product of winning the genetic lottery. Not game. Then again, the guy is completely comfortable in his own skin.

This is what makes things so much more difficult for normal looking guys. Once these low SMV women get models banging them, their standards for looks and game don't fall for a very long time. These women should not require lots of game, but nowadays, you need as much game to land a 3 or 4 as what used to be required to land a 10.

Post: #88

(12-06-2017 10:41 PM)DonnyGately Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 05:20 PM)TheBMan Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:30 AM)Steelex Wrote:  IMO, online dating is 100 percent about looks. The only reason you even read a girls profile is to try and come up with a good message and guage how easy it'll be to bang her.

Girls are only reading for disqualifiers. Your looks are the qualifier.

The closer you are to average, the less action you're going to get. This is because there actually are a LOT of good looking guys on these sites flaunting their shit. Rich guys, tall guys, built guys with tats, rich tall guys who are built with tats, ect...

If your claim to fame is that you look good in a button down and have a picture with you and your golden retriever, you better step your shit up because you're not even in the same league as the guys who are crushing it on there.

There are guys on these sites who mow through these girls like it's a full time job. It's kind of unreal.

Goes back to my theory - the top 1 or 2% are feasting on a pussy buffet the rest of us cant possibly imagine

Guys who can't get girls out from online always blame looks or money or something they have no control over. Look in the mirror. It's like the old excuses from guys who couldn't get laid at clubs, 'She's bitchy, I'm too short, she's a gold-digger, she probably likes 'roid freaks, she must date male models, she only dates guys with coke, etc, etc.'

The game done changed. Step it up. The problem with all of your failed pickups is you.

Share a pic of yourself then or the pics you are using online. I'm genuinely curious to see how guys who say this stuff look facially that say face doesn't matter. There's no denial that the bar has been raised across the board, but there should also be no denial that looks play a much bigger role especially if you are starting from a phone or the internet. I do feel there are some guys who are naturals with great game who shoot way above their level but there are also many guys with avg game or below who have model caliber looks who come on here and say looks don't matter to stroke their own ego. It's like the hot girl who claims all the guys want her for her great personality. Not to turn this into a whole looks vs game debate, but seriously, try to have a little understanding for guys who don't have it so easy.

Post: #89

It's degeneracy

Post: #90

Has there ever been a thread about online dating where it didn't devolve into moralizing (muh degeneracy!) or bitching about how the scales are tipped?

I'm not saying either one is wrong per se, but who fucking cares? Either use it or don't use it. The worst thing you could do is make a big deal about it.

It can be frustrating, there's no doubt about that.

So what I typically do is i'll get on bumble, swipe for awhile, meet some chicks, bang a few, get flaked on by a few, rinse, repeat, until I just get sick of it and delete it. A few months later, I'll repeat the cycle.

I will admit that banging chicks from online is somewhat less fulfilling than a real life swoop.

The point is, winners will always find ways to win. If one avenue isn't working, explore other avenues. What winners don't do is bitch about why they're not winning.

Post: #91

(11-30-2017 12:10 PM)Isaac Jordan Wrote:  I've also noticed that the shortest girls (at least here in America) often end up with the tallest guys. This observation combined with my experience above lead me to an evo-psych theory where a short girl's subconscious knows that if she mates with an equally short guy, the kids would more likely than not turn out VERY short, so perhaps it compels her to be attracted to overly tall man, such that their genes would average out to produce normal height children.

This seems not to be the case, as introduced by Galton in his, and empirically verified, regression to the mean.

Regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement.

Also, check out Galton's Bean Machine illustrating the Central Limit Theorem.