Articles by Author: Alek Rolstad | Girls Chase

Articles by Author: Alek Rolstad

Can You Get Every Girl?

Alek Rolstad's picture
get every girlIs it possible to attain every girl if you get good enough with women? Or are there limits? A realistic look at the upper echelons of ladykilling skills.

Hey guys.

Today I would like to offer a few words about what is achievable and what we can hope to attain in pickup and seduction. There are two schools of thought on this subject.

The first is the pessimistic view that a girl is either into you or not, and at the first sign of a challenge, you need to consider it a rejection.

And the other is the optimistic view that you can get any girl.

Both these extremes are flawed. I will attempt to show you why and then present my view.

We will approach this by covering both views first and discussing why each is flawed. Then I will give you my perspective, which is a synthesis of both.

How to Be Consistent Picking Up Girls

Alek Rolstad's picture
pickup consistencyThere are many ways to be more consistent when out picking up women. More seductive tools, greater awareness of your surroundings, less reliance on mood, and more.

Hey guys. Welcome back.

This post is for advanced guys or those who want to work their way into the advanced level.

I’ve written much about consistency and getting results consistently before. I’ve also written about getting a high meet-to-lay ratio (how many you meet compared to how many you seal the deal with).

Both are closely correlated since a higher meet-to-lay ratio means more consistency.

Getting a high meet-to-lay ratio and becoming consistent correlates with how tight your game is and how good you are with women.

I’ve mentioned that calibration was the key to the high meet-to-lay ratio, and thus consistency. I want to elaborate on what leads to consistency. So today, I’ll discuss what makes one consistent.

First, a few words on the meet-to-lay ratio.

How to Compete with the Other Guys Texting Her

Alek Rolstad's picture
men on her phoneAs more and more men crowd into women’s profiles and messages, how do you get a girl’s attention on the phone? By declining to compete the ordinary ways.

Hey guys and welcome back.

Earlier this year, I discussed how neo-direct game makes everything much harder. It can trigger premature rejections as women display high standards from being in a position of power, which you put them in by showing too much interest too early.

Because of the surge of neo-direct game, many men who experiment with cold approach pickup would face harsh rejections and find women acting testy and displaying insanely high standards (because men put them in a position where they do so).

To add to the frustration, the popularization of online dating apps such as Tinder have a bad male-to-female ratio (over 70% of men). Plus, women often use Tinder to promote their Instagram. It is discouraging to be ignored constantly and not receive likes and not have girls respond to your messages.

So men feel that women have high standards:

  • Men don’t get results and are ignored on Tinder

  • Men get rejected prematurely in real life from using the wrong approach

  • Women are in a powerful position to do so due to the frame men set

But there is another dimension I would like to discuss here.

Let’s say, after plenty of harsh rejections in real life, that a guy finally gets a decent hook out of luck.

Now that is awesome! I am happy for him.

He takes her number. He texts her. No response. Or maybe she responds, but now she doesn’t seem nearly as interested. And maybe when the time comes, she flakes.

We have seen an epidemic of flakes lately. There’s a reason why texting products are in high demand. It’s extremely frustrating not to get a response from a girl you thought you had a good shot with, but when she flakes, it is devastating.

This is the subject I want to discuss today. I will not cover the basics for why women may flake, which could be summarized as:

  • Her mood may change when you are not around. She was stimulated when you met her, but tomorrow is a different day, and she’s in a different mood.

  • As time has passed, she may have forgotten how you made her feel. Her compliance lowers.

  • Because of the limitations of texting (she can’t hear your voice, see your face, and vice versa) and you are not communicating in real-time, you cannot calibrate on the spot.

So she may flake.

But something has changed over the years. Back in the day, a solid interaction and some good texting would have a higher chance of leading to a meet-up than today. Of course, flakes always occur. That’s just the way things are. But things have gotten worse.

Why is that? And what can we do about it?

Advanced Game: 3 Qualities Elite Seducers Possess

Alek Rolstad's picture
advanced gameYou might see a playboy pull a beautiful girl or two. But is he advanced – or did he just get lucky? The trifecta of calibration, meet-to-lay, and consistency will tell you.

Hey guys.

We often talk about skilled seducers. But what defines a skilled seducer? Many people post videos of famous movies scenes on forums where the protagonist is acting sexy (like James Bond) to show what perception they have of “sexiness” or “tight game.” Some tell me about their “supernatural” friend (a “natural” is someone who is naturally skilled with women) to show me what tight game is. Sometimes they share a story of themselves in field or post a lay report on the forums and comment about the amazing job they did.

The truth is, I rarely am impressed. Don’t get me wrong. I am not claiming that the James Bond smirk is not sexy or that your natural friend has no skill. Nor do I want to discredit you in your success.

If you post a cool report on the forums and I happen to read it, you will hear nothing but praise from me.

But what really constitutes an advanced-level seducer goes far beyond that. Trust me; it is not what you’d expect.

That’s why today, I’ll share what I consider advanced-level play. Many veterans feel the same way. I know because I’ve talked to them. These are just opinions, and you are welcome to disagree.

We all have different goals, and true mastery depends on what we seek to achieve. What defines success is individual. That being said, I think there are ways to become more objective with success. I will discuss that here.

I will be setting the bar quite high for what I consider advanced level. The requirements presented in this article are reachable goals.

Sex Talk Gambits: Interhuman Relations

Alek Rolstad's picture
sex talk gambits: interhuman relationsThree new sex talk gambits to use with girls you want to seduce: the Mutual Seduction, Sexual Perversion II, and Ultimate Blow Job gambits.

Hey guys and welcome.

It’s time for more sex talk gambits.

Today we will go through three gambits with different themes that use the same concept.

So, take what you like and whichever suits your style.

Remember that you can always develop multiple if not infinite gambits by using these concepts.

I say this to motivate you to create versions of your own gambits by using your words and tweaks. This is key because you will eventually want to develop your own style.

Sex Talk Gambits: The Sexual Perversion Gambit

Alek Rolstad's picture
sexual perversion gambitThis sex talk gambit lets you reframe sex (even casual sex) as healthy and natural… and abstinence from sex as something weird a woman must avoid.

Hey guys and welcome back.

It is time for a gambit—a sex talk gambit, that is. It has been a while since I have covered a gambit. This does not mean that I haven’t come up with materials. The ongoing pandemic makes it more difficult to test gambits in field. I will never share anything that I haven’t tested properly.

Today’s new gambit is the bomb. It will allow you to:

  • Talk about sex

  • Reframe sexual abstinence and sexual restrictions as bad

  • Promote a frame of spontaneity, openness, and curiosity

All these factors can have a huge effect on your results. If your frame is to get sexual with a girl, it will become much easier to proceed, and you will not be too many steps away from bedding her.

I need to address what I always stress:

  • Gambits, including this one, can be used as presented.

  • You can make variations (more complex or shorter versions) using your own words. The results will be similar if you convey the essential gist and use key mechanics. So use this gambit as an inspiration for your personal gambits.

  • Take the mechanics from this and previous gambits to create your own gambit from scratch.

My results with this gambit has led to:

  • Multiple lays in a very smooth and efficient manner

  • Great hooks if not lays (the lay did not happen due to other circumstances)

  • No bad reactions or rejections so far

I have been using this gambit since the second half of 2021 and for part of the winter. I stopped due to lockdowns and not being able to head out (this will soon change, so I will be using it again). Other experienced seducers have also had success with it.

Let’s begin. First, we will discuss “perversion” and what it means.

Best Hair Products for Sexy Male Hairdos

Alek Rolstad's picture
hair productsGetting a great looking male hairstyle isn’t just about the cut and the do. It’s also about the products. Here’s what shampoos, primers, sprays, creams, and more to use.

Hey guys. Today I have a different post, one I never intended to write.

It was Chase’s idea. We spoke one day, and since he and I both have long hair, we started discussing hair products that are best for long hair.

Being a bit of a fashionista myself, I’ve spent much time experimenting with different hair products. I know what works for me, and my suggestions have usually helped others.

Note that I am not a hairdresser or a barber. My expertise is pick up, seduction, social dynamics, sex, and relationships.

Yet Chase was excited discussing hair products and suggested I write about it. I was hesitant at first, but Chase can be persuasive.

Some guys in the skillseducer chat tried some of the products I recommend and had good results. So, I thought, why not?

Disclaimer #1: I am an influencer in the sense that I influence women in field. I do not receive compensation from hair product producers. I am about to suggest products that I love and have had great success with. A big corporation like L’Oreal (who owns Redken) would never use a funnel like GirlsChase to promote—they have better market funnels.

Disclaimer #2: If you think it is “gay” or “effeminate” to care about hair products, that’s fine and is your belief. Remember, the look of your hair matters. From my experience, having nice hair is more effective than having a 6-pack. We want to maximize every variable, and this is one. We do not care what is “effeminate” or “gay;” we care about what works and what will give you results with women. Also, men have more sensitive hair than women. Trust me; it is usually thicker. So, men’s hair needs more maintenance. Some men have short hair, and using the wrong clay or wax will make you look ungroomed and nasty. It will negatively affect your success.

Disclaimer #3: Some of you may have afros; some may be bald. I have Caucasian wavy hair. I have experience helping my friend Pablo, a Latino with curly hair. I have advised people with straight hair. But I do not have experience with afros. If you are bald, then shave it all away, work out, get a tan, get a nice beard, and you will look badass. However, this post is not for you.

Using high-quality hair products will reduce your chances of going bald since bad hair wax can increase hair loss. Not rinsing out styling products can also increase hair loss. So even though going bald is not the end of the world, try to do your best to keep your hair for as long as possible.

How REAL Direct Game Works... Compared with Neo-Direct

Alek Rolstad's picture
real direct vs. neo-directReal direct game has a lot of nuance and flavor that overly simplistic “neo-direct” lacks. What are the differences? All spelled out for you to see.

Hey guys, and welcome back.

Last week I shared the history behind direct game and how it came to fruition. I countered common issues beginners often faced with indirect game back in the day. Direct game developed to respond to these issues:

  • Indirect game caused auto-rejections if done uncalibrated and incorrectly (by going too far or not showing interest when warranted). On the other hand, direct game solved this issue by being direct.

  • Girls who do not have a minimum threshold of interest can show mixed signals from the get-go. This required the man to convey attractive traits to spike interest before they get her to chase. Direct game solved this issue by screening out those girls who did not have this small initial spark of interest.

  • Many beginners back in the day suffered from being friend-zoned by women due to too much passivity and the fear of sexualizing the interaction since sexualizing was synonymous with escalation, which means showing interest. Due to the fear of showing too much interest (the dogmas of indirect game say to show interest sparingly/don’t show too much interest), many men ended up with escalation anxiety. Direct game took a shortcut to solve this issue since the contradiction between escalating (showing interest) and “don’t show any interest” disappeared as direct game vouches for showing interest.

As you can see, many issues were solved with the surge of direct game.

Today, we will see how the good old-school direct game is NOTHING like neo-direct game, now all over the internet. Neo-direct game says you should approach any girl out of the blue and hope for the best, with little or no pickup tech, frame control, or calibration. This is not direct game.

Let’s discuss what the old-school direct game really is. It is nothing like neo-direct game with its terrible ratios, over-simplistic, and inefficient tools. Direct game is a well-thought-out and complex method with many strengths.

FYI: Yes, I have experience with direct game. I have read plenty of material by direct gamers, and I have also known direct gamers who were good.

How Did Direct Game Pickup Grow So Popular?

Alek Rolstad's picture
direct game pickupIt seems like every guy runs direct game on the girls he meets these days. But how’d direct get to be so popular? It wasn’t always so…

Hey guys.

So today I wanted to share some clarifications on a subject I have discussed in-depth in 2021: namely the whole “direct versus indirect game” subject.

If you have been following my posts over the past year, you should know by now that I am a strong believer in indirect game – namely the type of seduction where you do not reveal your cards (your interest) until she has shown some interest first.

This entails that you must keep her knowledge of your interest in her ambiguous until you manage to build some compliance (or call it “build attraction”). Once you have managed to do exactly that, you will get signs of interest in return, at which point you can reciprocate and show interest back. The amount of interest you show in return depends on how much interest she shows you; you more or less calibrate accordingly at all times.

There are forms of indirect game that are more passive (indirect) than others… yet in strong opposition comes this new trend of neo-direct game, which is all about expressing your interest in her right away. The cat is out of the bag – she knows you want her, and you’ve just got to try to make it happen by convincing her that you are a great potential lover.

Already there we can see how the frame is totally off!

She is now in power… since you are clearly the one chasing her.

She has a higher perceived sexual market value and therefore she gets to dictate the terms. Here she can set very high expectations in terms of her standards. This is how you end up facing highly inflated standards – or rather, that is when you become a guy who gets to deal with those high standards, since men who did not give her all that power will not be facing those high expectations because they never allowed the other party (her) to set them in the first place.

This is exactly what I discussed in my previous post. There I discussed how this neo-direct game, where you constantly show interest from A to Z without ever keeping your level of interest in her ambiguous, without ever showing any mixed signals, and sometimes without ever using compliance-building techniques… or if those were used, they were only used sparingly.

It is easy to conclude from my previous post that indirect game is the solution to the problems that stem from simping and dealing with women’s inflated standards (which we saw only come fully into play when you allow her to express them by setting a frame that gives her the power to do so).

I wouldn’t rush to such a conclusion though. Now, I have in the past been very harsh towards direct game. This is due to two reasons:

  1. The surge of poorly done direct game or this overly direct form of direct game (neo-direct game) leading to cringe interactions between men and women. These cringe results led me to wanting to debunk it fully.

  2. I personally still believe indirect game is better – that is… (and I may be biased here) because it gives you a better meet-to-lay ratio, since you will have a chance to get some girls you wouldn’t get otherwise (that is, compared to using a non-indirect form of game: that is, direct game).

But this does not mean that direct game used the right way is necessarily bad. This may seem contradictory to things I have said about it in the past. But I need to do a mea culpa. Everything I said in those posts still holds true, in the sense that keeping your levels of interest in her ambiguous is the way to go because it gives you:

  • More compliance
  • Smoother interaction
  • A more solid frame – thus more control

All this still stands.

But this does not mean all direct forms of game contradict all these aspects.

This post is meant to give you guys a clarification on this issue.

In this post, I intend to discuss how this trend of neo-direct game came to be, going through the history of the seduction community. I want to tell you why and how direct game came to life and why and how it eventually turned into neo-direct game.

In my next post, I will pay homage to the good old school direct game – the one that truly worked. If you are a fan of direct game, you will love my next post.

Neo-Direct Game, Simping, & Women's High Standards

Alek Rolstad's picture
neo-direct gameGuys who try ‘gaming’ women with this new-style “neo-direct” game aren’t gaming girls. They’re simping IRL. Which explains the harsh rejections neo-direct gamers get.

Note: I will be criticizing super-direct (neo-direct) game in this post. However, I want to emphasize that I am not attacking direct game. I have previously been harsh about direct game, but those posts were mostly a criticism of super-neo direct game that I intend to criticize here. I will clarify further in my next two posts. I have a post on direct game coming out soon and will explain how to run it properly to get maximum efficiency and consistency. Stay tuned.

Hey guys.

Today I want to add my take on women and high standards in the era of social media and simping. I want to link this phenomenon with the surge of neo-direct game.

Direct game has become more popular lately.

However, the new form that has become more popular (which Chase calls “neo-direct game”) mostly teaches men to spam-approach on the street, show interest, and hope for the best.

These techniques have done nothing good for men, aside from giving them the balls to approach girls.

Girls with inflated egos from social media, plus the high amount of simping, only leads them to hunt for more validation. With this new form of direct game, you give her exactly what she wants. But now, you are not of much value to her—that is, unless she is looking for sex. Your odds are low since it is more likely that she would just call an F-buddy to satisfy her needs rather than going along with a stranger from the street.

Never have men obtained such bad results as they have using this approach to pick up. I have read reports on forums (some are from our own forum) of guys doing 100 approaches and only getting two lays. Those numbers don’t shock me, considering the style they apply.

What shocks me is that these results are considered normal. They are not. These men have been misled.

Such a ratio is not normal for someone who has made hundreds of approaches. The number of guys sharing these numbers may seem like outliers, but they are not; it is common. They do have one thing in common: they all used this super-direct approach.

Some guys are stubborn and stick to this bad routine because that’s how some of us are. (I have been guilty of this myself). Others just give up. The latter guys come to our forum or post in our comment section that women have too high standards. Chase wrote an amazing piece on the subject. I am not adding anything to his brilliant post.

It makes sense that many men think that women today have high standards. If you opt for super-direct game (neo-direct game), you will often get rejected. From there, it is easy to assume that you are not enough for her and that women’s standards have gone up drastically.

And in all honesty, in some ways, they have gone up. I will add a different perspective to Chase’s theory that doesn’t really conflict.

This “neo” super-direct game is no different than simping on the internet. Women indeed get plenty of attention from hungry, desperate men online. Just look at the surge of “sexual” services on, and all the attention-whoring on Instagram. Even Tinder is now used primarily as a tool to gain new followers on Instagram.

What we see coming out of neo-direct game is brutal. It is simping. Most beautiful women are used to such behavior. Even those who are not completely histrionic on social media will get some level of simping from different dating apps or elsewhere.

All this is because the internet facilitates two factors:

  • Male simping

  • Female attention-whoring

The internet motivates simping because this behavior in real life (especially night game) often results in a harsh rejection.


In real life, women have to reject to get rid of such men so they don’t annoy them or follow them around. There is also the danger of some men becoming sexual harassers.

Yet harsh rejections are not needed on the web because everyone is behind a screen. The men who follow a beautiful woman online either live far away or have no way of finding out where she lives. If an online fan goes too far, she block him, report him, and have him banned. So she does not need to reject harshly.

Men can stick around online since it does not pose any danger to her, and it can benefit her social status and validation. Instead of harsh rejections, women may give men a “like” to their comment as a pitiful reward, and if they are lucky, they even get an “Oh, you are so nice :D” comment.

However, once back to real life, women reject a stranger’s approach as a safety measure, especially when he is too pushy and forcing her into a corner. Remember that women have a risk-averse nature. (Read my theoretical post on female state control for more information.) A woman will usually choose the safe option, to reject, even if she considered you cute or interesting. She doesn’t know you and wants to play it safe. Smiling back and playing along will signify that she accepts your approach, which could potentially drag her into something she may later regret.

This fact has always been true. The club served as the main ground for attention-seeking behavior in the past,. (This still happens in clubs today, but the web now outcompetes it.) It’s why women have their shields up in clubs. Constantly dealing with frumpy and bitchy women, leading to plenty of harsh rejections, demotivates many men from using simping-like behavior in clubs. This is the reason why indirect game was revolutionary back in the 2000s. It was the opposite of simping behavior. It was a countermeasure to the harsh rejections men would face in clubs.