Question About Pua In Countryside, And Eye-contact

[Randy Jinx]

Yeah, and darts is a numbers game because if you throw more darts you get more bullseyes, right? Well yes but that totally ignores the huge amount of skill involved

With darts you can still win even if you don't hit a bullseye.

With darts, NOT trying to hit the bullseye is actually the best strategy (from my limited understanding). In very much the same way, in pickup, basing your entire success or failure on the binary of "did I get laid" is probably the single worst way of thinking about it.

I play darts, you aim for your target/bullseye. The more you practice and perfect your technique, the better your score will usually be.

A player can have issues with the understanding of technique, that they are getting to uptight about trying to hit the bullseye or in general, versus focus on fundamentals and using proper technique.

And if you are having issues with getting good scores, coaching and advice from experts help greatly.

Interesting analogies about darts guys. Indeed, most pro or somewhat knowledgeable/experienced darts players know that aiming for the bullseye (centre of the dartboard) is not only unnecessary but doesn't even give you the most points in most variations of the game. Double on, triple twenties, double off. Cunning and skill. Darts or Sex. Cunning. And. Skill. It's all the same. When talking with women, probably not best to use "hey, wanna go to hotel (bullseye!!!) with me?" as your opening line. In sex, you probably don't want to just jam your fingers in her pussy (bullseye!!!) going "aw yeah!!! I know you like it!!!" before either of you have your clothes off.

 

[Solong]

Interesting analogies about darts guys. Indeed, most pro or somewhat knowledgeable/experienced darts players know that aiming for the bullseye (centre of the dartboard) is not only unnecessary but doesn't even give you the most points in most variations of the game. Double on, triple twenties, double off. Cunning and skill. Darts or Sex. Cunning. And. Skill. It's all the same. When talking with women, probably not best to use "hey, wanna go to hotel (bullseye!!!) with me?" as your opening line. In sex, you probably don't want to just jam your fingers in her pussy (bullseye!!!) going "aw yeah!!! I know you like it!!!" before either of you have your clothes off.

I agree to an extent, but for those that play darts, in say 301 or Cricket, you must hit specified numbers. Otherwise, you can lose, as your opponent hits the correct or higher numbers.

And yes, you can go for triple 20 (60 points) or triple 19 (57 points), so not necessary to always or only go for the bullseye. But in fact, PUA contains many various strategies to win, and it's not limited to only certain methods.

 

[Randy Jinx]

I agree to an extent, but for those that play darts, in say 301 or Cricket, you must hit specified numbers. Otherwise, you can lose, as your opponent hits the correct or higher numbers.

And yes, you can go for triple 20 (60 points) or triple 19 (57 points), so not necessary to always or only go for the bullseye. But in fact, PUA contains many various strategies to win, and it's not limited to only certain methods.

Very true. In darts as in life, many ways to win. Some like the bullseye, some like the game. Just be careful not to hit anyone with your darts. It hurts. (that last part is for the non-analogous part of the conversation hahaha)

 

[Wwanderer]

Just be careful not to hit anyone with your darts. It hurts.

One of the most astonishing things to me about 9259 (the happening bar) is that it has a dart board at which at least half-drunk people are often playing in close proximity to other half-drunk people frolicking around and getting it on in various states of undress. This strikes me as a lunatic recipe for producing accident too horrible to contemplate. Whose idea was this?!

-Ww

 

[Ascent]

With darts, NOT trying to hit the bullseye is actually the best strategy (from my limited understanding). In very much the same way, in pickup, basing your entire success or failure on the binary of "did I get laid" is probably the single worst way of thinking about it. Myopic focus on trying to score a bullseye will leave you with nothing. I can't overstate this fact, and how much it's probably having a negative effect on your interactions, self-esteem, and evaluations of the method.

Who said anything about that?
I can get laid easily off a date. Getting a date off someone approached in public is another matter.
If you can't see them again it's just a long series of superficially pleasant conversations (along with a bunch of unpleasant ones) with lying or disinterested random strangers. If even the most clearly attracted women will never consider further contact except in the rarest of edge cases, what is the point of the undertaking? With most interactions a black box as to what actually happened, even indirectly gaining experience is virtually impossible. There's nothing myopic about critically considering the effectiveness of any given method.

They definitely DO come out to meet you if your initial interaction was solid. If you think you are having a lot of solid interactions and you think the girl likes you, yet none come out or read your texts, you have to re-evaluate. What you are doing isn't actually as effective as you think based on their reactions during the first interaction. However, I can guarantee you that a good initial interaction does make or break the difference of whether she will come out again or not.

This is a circular line of argument. "If they don't come out, your interaction was not solid" - well, yes. Obviously they will come out on the basis of a solid interaction, and that is the ultimate proof of a successful approach. But those are extremely uncommon, and one of the main reasons interactions are not solid is that most girls want nothing to do with guys approaching them in public.

 

[Sinapse]

If even the most clearly attracted women will never consider further contact with me except in the rarest of edge cases, what is the point of the undertaking? With most interactions a black box as to what actually happened, even indirectly gaining experience is virtually impossible. There's nothing myopic about critically considering the effectiveness of any given method.



This is a circular line of argument. "If they don't come out, your interaction was not solid" - well, yes. Obviously they will come out on the basis of a solid interaction, and that is the ultimate proof of a successful approach. But those are extremely uncommon for me, and one of the main reasons interactions are not solid is that most girls want nothing to do with me approaching them in public.

FTFY

Street pickup works. I've done it an absurd amount, and I've seen it done many many times by hundreds of different guys. The method is sound. The common outlier? YOU. But rather than attempt to work out where you're going wrong, you're just blaming a proven method. It's like seeing an airplane fly and saying "well I can't fly when I flap my wings so airplanes don't exist because gravity"

 

[Manfreidi]

Yeah, that's not happening. TAG has really turned into PUApalozza. I have no idea how the lot of you supposedly run the numbers on the streets and yet still find time to flood this site with humblebrags.

At least the escorts on this site turn $400+ per trick, so they have plenty of time between Johns and can still pay the rent.

Sorry i took so long to reply to this - i got busy around the public holiday talking to random women, creating instant dates and acquiring LINE IDs.

Your seriously complaining about the presence of pick up artists in a pickup artist subforum? I get really sad that you guys (yes there are more than just humble John out there) are so jaded that you can't live and let live. I thought that last time I confronted you on this topic you had learned obviously not. If anything you have graduated from your passive aggressive approach to straight out trolling.

 

[Manfreidi]

I am seeing a current trend in a lot of these threads where we get stuck in these circular arguments on the broad topic of PUA between its proponents and opponents along with a dash of disbelief.

I have no problem with these discussions but can see how they are derailing a lot of interesting threads that had there own merit. You guys might want to create a seperate thread where each of you can clearly post your view point on PUA and leave it this naval gazing there?

 

[Ascent]

Street pickup works. I've done it an absurd amount, and I've seen it done many many times by hundreds of different guys. The method is sound. The common outlier? YOU. But rather than attempt to work out where you're going wrong, you're just blaming a proven method. It's like seeing an airplane fly and saying "well I can't fly when I flap my wings so airplanes don't exist because gravity"

So again anyone for whom the method does not work well is an "outlier", "in need of coaching" or "not applying the method correctly". Anyone who complains of this ineffectiveness is "outcome dependent". More circular reasoning.

It's a proven method alright - proven to work about 1%-5% of the time at best (you've already admitted the overwhelming majority of girls you approach want nothing to do with you either), for a tiny handful of vociferous proponents, half of whom are motivated by pecuniary gain and the other half by bragging rights.

I certainly hope your pickup skills are better than your argumentation and salesmanship skills, although that is not exactly setting the bar high.

Since your own advice to the OP was basically "don't do cold approach" I'm not sure what part of street pickup "works" for him, either?

 

[Sinapse]

So again anyone for whom the method does not work well is an "outlier", "in need of coaching" or "not applying the method correctly". Anyone who complains of this ineffectiveness is "outcome dependent". More circular reasoning.

You only make yourself an outlier if you try to assert that the method itself doesn't work. As long as you admit that, like a basketball player, you won't immediately be the LeBron of pickup, but at the same time practice improves your shot. If you realize and have faith that you can and will get better at this, and instead of blaming me or other people (women) for failure, you instead consider that perhaps you are not communicating in the most effective manner, you actually have a chance at getting good at cold approach. As you've mentioned you seem to have little difficulty when you actually get the girl on the date. So the main issue is communicating your personality in a shorter period of time - especially a short cold approach interaction. But rather than examine exactly how you could work to improve your initial interaction, you are worried about what it means that you "fail" at 99% of interactions.

The reason that "outcome dependence," or valuing "batting average" or notches in your bedpost, or any other statistic that considers sex with women as the ultimate be-all-end-all of the interaction, you pre-emptively hand over all your power in the interaction. Imagine you have decided you are hungry and French food really is the best. You enter a bunch of shops, some are selling paintings, or carpets, or cars. Sometimes you find some selling food, and sometimes you find some selling French food in particular. If you considered only the rate of how many shops you entered compared to how many had what you are looking for, you would feel pretty miserable. However, if you considered success as the act of searching for what you truly desire, and still realizing that you might not find it everywhere, you would base your success very differently. In other words - the very act of assuming that every girl you approach is a potential "success" you immediately have bought into her, regardless of who she is. She might be the least aligned to your interests and personalitites, but just because she has a vagina you assume the game is on. Instead, if you consider both the interaction itself to be valuable (human interactions are rich in experience and enjoyment, not only interactions which involve sex) and maintain your own ability to choose (based on your criteria of what you are looking for), your success rate might be very different. Which is more pitiful? A guy sleeping with 2 women a week, yet not finding anyone he truly resonates with, or a guy who only sleeps with one or two women a year, yet he is totally into them. Defining success as just sex isn't helpful for yourself, nor is it effective in making her feel like a real person. Once again, what is philosophically or mentally correct is the same as what is brutally effective.

Since your own advice to the OP was basically "don't do cold approach" I'm not sure what part of street pickup "works" for him, either?

My advice to OP was to diversify the ways he meets women, and be tactful because he is in a limited social environment - not a city with total anonymity. I'm not sure how that ended up being "don't do cold approach" in your mind. Cold approach itself is helped with nuance, not destroyed by it. In this case, there are much more subtle ways to go about a cold approach, however in the city that might not be as necessary. Either way, it can and will work.

 

[Solong]

So again anyone for whom the method does not work well is an "outlier", "in need of coaching" or "not applying the method correctly". Anyone who complains of this ineffectiveness is "outcome dependent". More circular reasoning.

It's a proven method alright - proven to work about 1%-5% of the time at best (you've already admitted the overwhelming majority of girls you approach want nothing to do with you either), for a tiny handful of vociferous proponents, half of whom are motivated by pecuniary gain and the other half by bragging rights.

I certainly hope your pickup skills are better than your argumentation and salesmanship skills, although that is not exactly setting the bar high.

Since your own advice to the OP was basically "don't do cold approach" I'm not sure what part of street pickup "works" for him, either?

Pick up can work way beyond 1% to 5%, depends on who and/or their skill level. Trying to put an absolute cap on efficiency, is to not fully understand pick up.

And even at what some may believe is "low efficiency", pick up can have an accumulative effect overy months, like compound interest, where the practitioner keeps acquiring sex-friends or girlfriends over time, to the point that he can have as many or more women than he can handle.

 

[4vibes]

Pick up can work way beyond 1% to 5%, depends on who and/or their skill level. Trying to put an absolute cap on efficiency, is to not fully understand pick up.

And even at what some may believe is "low efficiency", pick up can have an accumulative affect overy months, like compound interest, where the practitioner keeps acquiring sex-friends or girlfriends over time, to the point that he can have as many or more women than he can handle.

I thought PUA was about doing away with the numbers game as much as possible. If it's 1-5% why bother with it. Choose another method. From my reading of the author's postings, there's not enough kino. Kino is the most important part of seduction. Without kino you will be just a friend.

 

[Solong]

I thought PUA was about doing away with the numbers game as much as possible. If it's 1-5% why bother with it. Choose another method. From my reading of the author's postings, there's not enough kino. Kino is the most important part of seduction. Without kino you will be just a friend.

I'm not afraid to talk about results or analyze efficiency, to help improve technique. However, any guy is free to not put pressure on themselves. Each PUA is different and there are different schools of thought.

I also don't know why I keep saying it's not ONLY 1% to 5% efficiency and there is no strict limit on how efficient a PUA can eventually become, but then people repeat those "low" numbers. To me, guys need to realize the "accumulative effect", and not reach for anything to justify cowardice or laziness, versus making an effort.

And those were percentages more in reference to newbies or those who are randomly approaching and haven't developed any higher level game.

Even then, made it a point, that at low efficiency the guy will be better off approaching than not.

3% to 5% ish Efficiency

Week 1

27 approaches. 9 contacts. 3 dates. Sex with 1

Week 2

27 approaches. 9 contacts. 3 dates. Sex with 1... Note the pattern.

Month 1

4 sex encounters and 1 sex-friend/girlfriend.

Note- Assuming he is a mediocre or bad in bed, or the females he is dealing with are scandalous bitches who run off after the 1st night and 75% of the time. So keeps only 1 out 4 women he manages to have sex with.

1 year

48 sexual encounters and 12 sex-friends/girlfriends

That "low efficiency" guy, who people ignorant of the math and accumulative effect, because of his EFFORT, will likely had MORE sex than the snobs who were thumbing their nose.

By the end of the year, with 12 GIRLFRIENDS, how would he even handle them all as there are only 7 days in the week?!? So....

If he just maintained strong effort and a steady pace, by 6 MONTHS, he could have 6 sex-friends/girlfriends to juggle with.

Don't think a man needs to choose any other method, that will give him more girlfriends/sex-friends than there are days in the week. Just keep willing to improve.

But if he rather be a pretend snob or victim of his own cowardice, then any man is free to jerk off in a room by himself watching porn (wishing for instead of DOING) or spend 50% or more of his net income buying very limited sex (time limit, condom, and limited type of sex) from women that pretend to like him for money. Just saying, actually doing the math and real experience, makes what's up a lot more clear.

And agree, mastering KINO is a treasure of helpfulness by itself, that can likely lead to increased efficiency, even if the guy doesn't keep track of such.

 

[John Chavers]

Sorry i took so long to reply to this - i got busy around the public holiday talking to random women, creating instant dates and acquiring LINE IDs.

Your seriously complaining about the presence of pick up artists in a pickup artist subforum?

Deal. Stay off the other threads with this humblebrag nonsense and I'll avoid PUA.

Sure would be nice if we could filter out PUA and off-topic threads from the "New Posts" section in our profile settings.

 

[NormalGuy]

I will dare and the answer may be shocking to many. What various women don't know, is the question of IF women actually love men has been long debated among MGTOW.

I too will question why you decided to add this, is it your belief, or are you just saying "there are people out there that believe".

I had to look up who MGTOW are, but I don't believe quoting someone else believing something is in any way adding any value to anything. David Icke believes that there are lizard men running the earth, the Heavens Gate cult believed there was a spaceship following a comet, should we also be taking their crackpot theories into account and using them in arguments trying to prove something?

As you stated, some theories like the earth is flat are disproved because people at the time didn't have the scientific knowledge to prove otherwise, other theories are just made up by nutjobs that those with half a brain can spot a mile away.

Men Going Their Own Way, should follow their own name and go their own way.

 

[Sinapse]

this humblebrag nonsense

Interesting when it's about how much money you make and throw around so you don't have to pickup, it's normal conversation, but when it's about how much you're getting laid for free, it's a "humblebrag"

 

[Solong]

I too will question why you decided to add this, is it your belief, or are you just saying "there are people out there that believe".

I had to look up who MGTOW are, but I don't believe quoting someone else believing something is in any way adding any value to anything. David Icke believes that there are lizard men running the earth, the Heavens Gate cult believed there was a spaceship following a comet, should we also be taking their crackpot theories into account and using them in arguments trying to prove something?

As you stated, some theories like the earth is flat are disproved because people at the time didn't have the scientific knowledge to prove otherwise, other theories are just made up by nutjobs that those with half a brain can spot a mile away.

Men Going Their Own Way, should follow their own name and go their own way.

I'm not MGTOW. Let me make that abundantly clear.

I brought them up, to show how it has long been debated by large circles of men, if women truly loved men for themselves versus what they can get from them.

Also, before you attack them, I suggest you study up on them. If you have a beef against them, you can bring that up to representatives directly. I only know of them, versus am one.

 

[Wwanderer]

I'd say MGTOW is a superb example of evolution in action...

-Ww

 

[Solong]

I'd say MGTOW is a superb example of evolution in action...

-Ww

As is Feminism, if that's your line of thought.

 

[Wwanderer]

As is Feminism, if that's your line of thought.

So called 2nd wave perhaps, but not 3rd wave...

But gender may soon disappear from our species (making it no longer our species actually) soon (in evolutionary terms) anyway.

-Ww

 

[Solong]

So called 2nd wave perhaps, but not 3rd wave...

But gender may soon disappear from our species (making it no longer our species actually) soon (in evolutionary terms) anyway.

-Ww

3rd wave feminism is seen by many as the worse version of feminism, which seeks special privileges for women specifically and unfair laws, and no longer is about equality or fairness.

Japan also has herbivore men, soushoku. These are a close Japanese equivalent to MGTOW, and men who are arguably tired of dealing with the conventional version of women.

And I agree, to an extent. Upcoming and the advancement of technologies like the artificial womb, sex androids, male birth control pills, near perfect looking lady boys/transvestites, etc... Will change the landscape and destroy the conventional sexual dynamic as we know it today.

 

[Ascent]

If you realize and have faith that you can and will get better at this, and instead of blaming me or other people (women) for failure, you instead consider that perhaps you are not communicating in the most effective manner, you actually have a chance at getting good at cold approach. As you've mentioned you seem to have little difficulty when you actually get the girl on the date. So the main issue is communicating your personality in a shorter period of time - especially a short cold approach interaction. But rather than examine exactly how you could work to improve your initial interaction, you are worried about what it means that you "fail" at 99% of interactions.

It's too much to ask for faith. This is not a religion or cult. Results are all that's required. Not sex, just a woman prepared to actually meet again as the result of a deliberate public approach.

As far as I can see there is an almost insurmountable qualitative difference between Japanese women met in cold approach situations and elsewhere.

The reason that "outcome dependence," or valuing "batting average" or notches in your bedpost, or any other statistic that considers sex with women as the ultimate be-all-end-all of the interaction, you pre-emptively hand over all your power in the interaction.

I consider success to be making progress towards a goal. Not sex.

Statistics are an important means of keeping track of my progress and comparing methods, not a goal unto themselves. I don't see a problem with that.

I'm trying to meet women and attempt to start sexual relationships with them here, not just chat with random girls. If even the most basic requirement for inching towards this - that someone come out to meet me or is even just willing to communicate after parting - is practically unfulfillable then I would have trouble seeing what success or benefit I'm getting out of it, whilst it is certainly costing me a great deal of time and energy.

Only the secondary benefits of learning how to better strike up conversations with strangers have accrued, and I know I'm hardly the only guy who experiences these kinds of results.

Pick up can work way beyond 1% to 5%, depends on who and/or their skill level. Trying to put an absolute cap on efficiency, is to not fully understand pick up.

It certainly depends. For average looking guys, these numbers might be optimistic. If we are talking about big name PUA who have a certain amount of credibility and verifiable experience, they seem to be reporting these kinds of extremely low success rates. Our own dear Sinapse claims ~10%, although even if this is to be believed I think a lot of qualifications were involved.

To get above this you certainly need to start considering a guy's looks and status, etc. Although in fairness, also that of the girl.

And even at what some may believe is "low efficiency", pick up can have an accumulative effect overy months, like compound interest, where the practitioner keeps acquiring sex-friends or girlfriends over time, to the point that he can have as many or more women than he can handle.

Efficiency is comparative. I think the point which needs to be made is that the same level of energy invested in other methods of meeting women might well yield higher returns.

 

[Solong]

Efficiency is comparative. I think the point which needs to be made is that the same level of energy invested in other methods of meeting women might well yield higher returns.

That depends, as in some cases, a method may align more with a man's personality or innate abilities and qualities.

And in many cases, changing methodologies, can lead to equal or greater failure, or the man must make an effort to study in which he's not.

I see no advantages of any of the major methods over the other, to claim any are superior. Direct approach, Online, Social Circles...

To me, it's like the argument of if Kickboxing, Wrestling, or Submission holds are superior. I say it depends on the person, and you are actually better off understanding or being open-minded about all of them, as each has it's use.

 

[Wwanderer]

Efficiency is comparative. I think the point which needs to be made is that the same level of energy invested in other methods of meeting women might well yield higher returns.

Imo, this is an extremely reasonable point and deserves a lucid and direct answer.

To me one of the most startling and implausible aspects of PUA/gaming, at least the "cold" versions, is the the enormous amounts of time and effort said to be required just to meet women, the very first step in a long and complex sequence that leads to a significant relationship. It is unclear how intensive PUA/gamers even find the time for the rest of the process.

-Ww

 

[4vibes]

m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLkByqVWFdHIsx6C645h3RZ0XaidZy3Aqd&params=OAFIAVgM&v=-c-rTyh1Zrs&mode=NORMAL


I don't know if this guy is legit, but he claims to have better than 1-5%.