Post: #26

(12-14-2017 06:40 PM)realologist Wrote:  It's all an excuse. If you date enough, you will find some good girls. Period. If you date enough, you'll learn how to deal with women so you can handle a good one so she doesn't end up bad. Go out and date. Don't hide behind numbers. Action over autism.

Not an excuse. It's a situational assessment.

The purpose of a situational assessment is to develop realistic goals and objectives.

"If you date enough..." is a shotgun approach. I'm not interested in dating women that I have to handle "so she doesn't end up bad".

I'm interested in knowing that only 5% of women out there are likely to be worth dating.

As a result of knowing this, I can adjust my dating strategy so that I don't waste my time...more like a sniper strategy.

The maths model is just a way of confirming that the high value sniper approach is a better strategy (for me).

Your shotgun approach is perfectly valid too.

Just depends on what you are looking for.

Post: #27

Quote:Some cuck with really low test will raise her bastard children and marry her. She will then unleash the dogs of the state to extract resources before jumping back on the dong via online dating.

This is just a charicature promoted by the manosphere...plenty of these "low T beta cucks" who get divorced are accomplished guys in real life- perhaps ex miitary, very career-driven, often working high-stress jobs, but the wife becomes bored raising kids and unhaaaaappy because she's not getting enough attention or whatever and then next thing you know it's separation time and she's on Tinder.

Post: #28

(12-14-2017 06:53 PM)spydersuit Wrote:  You need to think about this in terms of network theory with a probablistic mixed model. If you are a highly central node, where women can easily find you, and you are high a quality man, then its shooting fish in a barrel.

That's good stuff

Post: #29

It's called gaming for a reason but I think sometimes there is this macho nerd-kicking impulse that kicks in anytime someone tries to actually throw down some hard numbers.





Sure, if you look like Urkel with flood pants no amount of sciencing the F out of the problem will help you, but at the same time, we are living in an era where we rely increasingly on computers. NASA made a big deal recently out of how it can now use machine-learning to sift through large data-sets to find exo-planets that was otherwise impractical, and Google's AI can go from zero to beating chess-masters in 4 hours.

The more I circle around the problem, which is the 80/20 rule and hypergamy, the more I can see how it's inevitable that some sort of deep-learning algorithm will be trained to crack this nut and it could help tilt leverage back into the hands of men who utilize it (until women get their version). I really see this as an arms race playing out in the cloud.

I guess this is just blind self-serving futurism on my part, but this kind of technology is moving at breakneck speeds.

Post: #30

(12-15-2017 04:30 AM)Cane Toad Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:40 PM)realologist Wrote:  It's all an excuse. If you date enough, you will find some good girls. Period.

Not an excuse. It's a situational assessment.

The purpose of a situational assessment is to develop realistic goals and objectives.

"If you date enough..." is a shotgun approach. I'm not interested in dating women that I have to handle "so she doesn't end up bad".

I'm interested in knowing that only 5% of women out there are likely to be worth dating.

+ 1 @ Cane!

- 1 @ Realologist; dating a lot of cratered SMV is NOT AN ARGUMENT.

A lot of cucks out there are like the guy I saw at the gym this week. Single mother victimhood 30 + with two children, a divorced butter face 6 (at best) is skiing down cawk mountain. I cannot even say she has cratered SMV because she hit the wall a long tie ago. This cuck was literally following her around the gym and inflating her ego as well as playing into her delusions.

There is not dating a lot of ^^^^^^^^^ that will seek quality. I advocate spamming cold approach. This gives access to a lot of women but, you are constantly sifting through fuckery like that above. Women are easily manipulated and corrupted like it was said in the Gita.

Quote:The Bhagavad Gita: "Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil."

https://www.quora.com/The-Bhagavad-Gita-...-statement

So, essentially, if you wanted to corrupt a tribe, you would corrupt the community. If you are bedding the women of another tribe, that tribe is weeded out of the gene pool with enough access.

There is no denying the abundance of tyrannical women in society. The growing number of cuckoldry. Its embedded into mainstream in shows like breaking bad/house of cards/HIMYM/Shameless/Stranger Things.

Hubby has cancer; brb guys, fucking my boss!

Furthermore, a lot of cucks and men with really low testosterone will do like that idiot I mentioned earlier. Blow up some delusional cratered SMV single mom pushing 40 who hit the wall eons ago. Guys will date this then post online about how good their game is. Its absolute pathetic.


I recently picked up a girl in a grocery store. How? Spam cold approach. Talk to everyone. Obv, my batting average is piss poor but, I couldn't give a damn. Top form SMV girl asks me for my fb. She is hitting me up. Turns out, she has a cuck bf.

This is women in 2018. Monogamy is a joke as is marriage now a days. A lot of men who are weak will still play homemaker and LTR cratered SMV or worse, turn a whore into a house wife.

Post: #31

(12-14-2017 06:53 PM)spydersuit Wrote:  [...] The reality, as you point out yourslelf, is that top quality women are hunting for high quality men too. You need to think about this in terms of network theory with a probablistic mixed model. If you are a highly central node, where women can easily find you [...].

Could you elaborate more on that?

Post: #32

Even the thread title with respect to "decent girl," says it all. Guys settling for b squaters.

Post: #33

(12-15-2017 11:04 AM)questor70 Wrote:  It's called gaming for a reason but I think sometimes there is this macho nerd-kicking impulse that kicks in anytime someone tries to actually throw down some hard numbers.





Sure, if you look like Urkel with flood pants no amount of sciencing the F out of the problem will help you, but at the same time, we are living in an era where we rely increasingly on computers. NASA made a big deal recently out of how it can now use machine-learning to sift through large data-sets to find exo-planets that was otherwise impractical, and Google's AI can go from zero to beating chess-masters in 4 hours.

The more I circle around the problem, which is the 80/20 rule and hypergamy, the more I can see how it's inevitable that some sort of deep-learning algorithm will be trained to crack this nut and it could help tilt leverage back into the hands of men who utilize it (until women get their version). I really see this as an arms race playing out in the cloud.

I guess this is just blind self-serving futurism on my part, but this kind of technology is moving at breakneck speeds.

That's interesting.

Liked the vid reference to Adam Smith. Separation of duty, working as a team. The pack v the lone wolf...great topic for further discussion.



The AI thing is also very interesting. Can an algorithm solve all our problems? I'm thinking it probably could do a good job of finding a suitable match. Not like some dumb question list on a dating site, but using "machine learning" it could learn our preferences over time and eventually perfect its decisions.

However, no matter how smart Ai becomes it will never understand the raw emotion that is driven by lust and male aggression. It's illogical, and we have all done stupid shit because we wanted to get laid.

And women are so much worse at the illogical bullshit that is driven by emotion.

Good luck getting any AI to understand that mess.

Post: #34

L337 H4X0R detected.

Post: #35

I've never met in my life a guy who is an 8 or below, is not rich or successful way above average, has no big or practical social circles that even dated an 8+ girl.

I've never met an 8 guy which is an average+ joe who gamed his way into dating an 8. At least not in any western country.
Do any of you guys have an example?

Post: #36

Lets use common sense.

What is the anti slut shame and fat shame movement? Promo of single moms? Poor attempt to mitigate cratered SMV. A free thinker sees through it. Now, women can sloot gonna sloot, children out of wedlock, absolute train wreck but cucks will marry her. No fall out.

Post: #37

(12-15-2017 06:46 PM)Cane Toad Wrote:  The AI thing is also very interesting. Can an algorithm solve all our problems? I'm thinking it probably could do a good job of finding a suitable match. Not like some dumb question list on a dating site, but using "machine learning" it could learn our preferences over time and eventually perfect its decisions.

Exactly. You can see little hints of this all over the place. What's an ELO score on Tinder, for instance? How about a targeted ad that reflects your recent browsing history? A recommended product on Amazon? Human behavior is being recorded, quantified, analyzed, and used to herd us into various behaviors. I don't mean that in a conspiratorial way as much as it's something all of us should just accept as the new normal and learn to use it to our advantage rather than it just using us.

Even if you do cold approach, wouldn't you appreciate having a digital wingman?



It could be like the AI in the new Spiderman's smart-suit that Tony Stark gave him. Then instead of doing 100 approaches to net one bang maybe you would only have to do 10. Wouldn't that be worth it to save the time and stings of rejection?

(12-15-2017 06:46 PM)Cane Toad Wrote:  Good luck getting any AI to understand that mess.

That's just the thing. Data is data.
You're telling me people here don't already do this???
Why all the advice to go tour FSU countries or SE Asia?
People always want to improve their odds somehow. Rather than relying on anecdotal word of mouth and stereotypes, why not use actual data?

For instance, Makeapp seems like a toy, but it uses machine-learning also. And that class of digital image manipulation is also responsible for this:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/artic...ke-ai-porn

Read this article. Porn stars are actually getting triggered over this (cue hamster wheel).

So you're telling me an algorithm can't crunch through terabytes of dating profile images and reliably estimate SMV? It can be done, and once that's done, that alone could save tons of time doing the initial filtering based on women's appearance.

Arthur C Clarke famously said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I don't really understand how these algorithms pull these tricks off, but they do. What makes you think they couldn't tease out a useful pattern in the entirety of scraped OK Cupid and POF profiles? I don't see this as high-tech vs. pickup artistry as much as just an overall success enhancer.

OK Cupid already runs a blog where it tries to do this, but it is doing it through classic statistical modeling. Machine-learning doesn't work that way. It's more like intuition informed through trial-and-error, not unlike what a guy learns by doing his proverbial 100 cold approaches. Remember that the rules of the game of Go were too complicated for a computer to master, but it did. I just don't think the sexual marketplace is so impossibly complex that an algorithm can't find the quickest route between two paths.

Even swipers suck because they require that we spend the 0.25 seconds (or more if we read the bio) to decide whether to swipe left or right. It doesn't sound like much, but it adds up. Then you get to text chats. Read through some of the threads here that talk about text game. When you first break the ice it is totally analogous to opening moves of chess. In chess, the opening moves start out very rote and unoriginal. Moving the central pawns forward is equivalent to "hey there". Then it expands out into trying to position your moves for maximum strength. Then you start your attack. Conceptually people here know this and there are theories on how to handle every aspect of it. Why can't an algorithm figure it out and manage the interaction like a bot? And I mean really manage it and not just send bullshit messages that are no better than old IRC chatbots from 20 years ago.

I really think that's where things are headed. Before we have full on sexbots we're going to have these digital matchmaker agents that will handle the most time-consuming fishing and icebreaking operations. When we do wind up getting involved it will be for actual dates and the women that are guaranteed to meet our minimum criteria. And odds are we will probably work with them through Alexa like natural language processing.

So it will be like the movie Her only the AI won't be truly sentient, only convincing enough to fool the other side during the inane icebreaker banter.

I feel like I should form a stealth-mode startup and do some R&D, although I don't personally have the comp-sci background to do the coding myself, but it probably wouldn't take long to find some people interested in brainstorming.

Oh, and about horsepower. You want horsepower? How about quantum computing? It's coming sooner than you think.

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines...licon-chip

Post: #38

Sure thing. Full disclosure. I am a scientist with strong modeling skills. On top of that, I hate models as experimentation leads to more reliable and valid results. Models help us understand complexity. Game is highly complex and you could use a million different models to answer game related questions. What model is best? The one that makes you get off your butt and helps you make a decision faster.

To answer your question: social networks are basically spoke and hub models, like a bike wheel. The spokes or nodes, are people, the spokes are relationships. In graphical form, the size of the node represents how connected that node is to other nodes (person to people). The width of the spoke when visually represented without color represents the strength of the relationship, and the length of the spoke represents the distance between the two people that are connected. Now, if many people know who you are, its easier for any one person to contact you or find you (same for women and men). Now, if you have a job where hot young and smart women seek you out for help of some kind (like a college professor), or if you build many authentic social relationships with women that know and like the man whore that you are (friend zone a few women to be your megaphones), then the hot women will find you or be steered to you by your social circle or your influence (fame, perceived social status, career, wealth). Remember humans are social creatures, and hot women want hot guys too. If you can shape your environment so that your target audience knows that you are available (and you are hot). They will find you.

None of what I wrote is really different than what I have read from others. Work on yourself and shape your environment to increase your contact rate with hot women. My focus these days is my diet and exercise (mid 30s) and positioning myself in environments where the women open or approach me. This is the slow and disciplined way to obtain a steady stream of high quality women.

But fuck models. Do some homework and then get out there and collect data.

Post: #39

(12-15-2017 07:35 PM)bruce_almighty Wrote:  I've never met in my life a guy who is an 8 or below, is not rich or successful way above average, has no big or practical social circles that even dated an 8+ girl.

I've never met an 8 guy which is an average+ joe who gamed his way into dating an 8. At least not in any western country.
Do any of you guys have an example?

I'm a 5 in looks, shorter than average, no social circle, and I've fucked an 8 from Tinder in a US city as well as several 7s.

Only thing I have going for me is a top 10% physique.

It's a numbers game, some girls will like you, some girls won't.

Post: #40

(12-13-2017 05:37 AM)Cane Toad Wrote:  ...suitable age range…say 20-35.

No. More like 20-25.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Post: #41

(12-15-2017 10:40 PM)Swell Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 05:37 AM)Cane Toad Wrote:  ...suitable age range…say 20-35.

No. More like 20-25.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks.

30s is gross. No chance i date women my age. EWWWW!

Gents, more like 18+ -23. Top form SMV.

Post: #42

Post: #43

I'm nearly 30, and I won't date a girl over 25 unless she's something seriously special.

Post: #44

I believe that in today's world where women take mens professions and are no longer what they used to be, there's an inflation of mens success.
This means that if back in the day you could have been a good looking, with an above average salary engineer and land an equally good looking wife, in today's world you're gonna have to do a lot better than just be an engineer who makes a good salary just to have a girl with the same level of looks. That's why in parallel to tightening up my game I'm gonna put a lot of effort into that too. It's just the way it is, we humans evolve.

Post: #45

(12-16-2017 07:26 AM)roberto Wrote:  I'm nearly 30, and I won't date a girl over 25 unless she's something seriously special.

See, this is where men fuck up. The headspace is point on, then beta male ambiguity kicks off. Women hone years of their craft by conning cucks into marrying them. no prenup before fucking them over.

If not young, fit, attractive IE TOP FORM SMV, you aren't doing it right. #NEXTSET

Post: #46

(12-16-2017 02:56 AM)Cane Toad Wrote:  

You wut mate?

Post: #47

Just move to NYC. 1mm more single straight women than men. Even if you believe this 'top 5%' handwavery that's 50k hot chicks waiting at home on a Saturday night with Netfilx, dying for a date.

Post: #48

(12-16-2017 11:18 AM)bruce_almighty Wrote:  I believe that in today's world where women take mens professions and are no longer what they used to be, there's an inflation of mens success.
This means that if back in the day you could have been a good looking, with an above average salary engineer and land an equally good looking wife, in today's world you're gonna have to do a lot better than just be an engineer who makes a good salary just to have a girl with the same level of looks. That's why in parallel to tightening up my game I'm gonna put a lot of effort into that too. It's just the way it is, we humans evolve.

I am checked out. I am pursuing the life I want. I am not chasing the carrot on a string. I've spent far too long chasing phantoms. I am pursuing 'thy will be done.' I am going to pursue self knowledge, explore consciousness, reason, and evidence. Along the way, I will meet a good woman (spamming cold approach lol). Top form or do not want.

IMHO, its a woman 6+ who is banging guys 8+ throughout her best years (YOUTH).

Playboy stops calling and on comes the good girl act to rope in some schmuck. Above, a poster refers to this as "special." While the sentiment is not lost, the act comes on thick. Real thick.

The same girl would be swallowing proteins and taking it in the pooper. Whatever it takes to get the ring but, thereafter, her true colors come out like the gross woman i mentioned the other day (30 + divorcee single mom skiing down cawk mountain ++++ bragging about it WTF?)!

Man gave her the ring. Gave her children. Paid for her schooling. She responded by cucking him and going on a rampage of sex.

Post: #49

(12-16-2017 11:51 AM)DonnyGately Wrote:  Just move to NYC. 1mm more single straight women than men. Even if you believe this 'top 5%' handwavery that's 50k hot chicks waiting at home on a Saturday night with Netfilx, dying for a date.

Fantastic ratio mate. That is awesome. Just watchout for those pushing near 30. Magically on purpose pregnancy tends to follow before jumping back on the dick and take your money. Worst of all, NYC is the most liberal state in the country maybe only second to Cali. Green haired obese liberal women, SJWs, and feminists lol

Post: #50

(12-16-2017 07:26 AM)roberto Wrote:  I'm nearly 30, and I won't date a girl over 25 unless she's something seriously special.

I'd bang an over 25 but I'd never date one. Say you're pretty fast in going down the marriage/kids path and have all that done within 3 years, that's still 29 for kid one and likely 31 for kid two. That's the end game of dating really.

You're just asking for issues.

Not to mention the amount of issues that would generally be attached for a woman to have made it to that age and not have been locked down already.