Pickup Tech

You 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.

By creating a vortex of value, you can suck girls into chasing you. Yet you need two (2) key elements to NOT become the dancing monkey / friend zone guy…

Here's a little technique I like to call the 'value vortex'.

I didn't invent it, but I haven't seen it named before (or if I have I don't remember what others have called it).

It's a suspiciously-simple sounding strategy that's very easy to get wrong. Therefore I do not recommend it to beginners. Beginners will see this and want to use it, but it will backfire for them. I'll explain why below.

The basics of this strategy are that you run a seduction in such a way that you only provide value to the girl's life -- heaps of it -- while sharing next to nothing about yourself. You must also be initiating touch and getting compliance as you do it, but only in the context of providing more value to her.

The effect, if executed well and on a girl who is not immune*, is that the girl you use it with will start to chase. She will at first be intrigued by you, then she will start to chase you harder, then harder.

If not used the way I lay out in this post, however, the strategy will backfire, and you will quickly friend zone yourself.

Disclaimers out of the way, let's open up the hood on this vortex and talk using it to seduce.

Three 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.

This 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.

Hector’s irreverent, forward, crass style of direct seems to violate all the rules of ‘good game’. Yet take a closer look, and it’s obvious how this form of seduction succeeds.

All right gents, here's the clarifying article you've been waiting for!

Since Alek Rolstad came out swinging against the stupidly-simplified "just shoot your shot" style of 'game' we're now calling 'neo-direct', readers have been asking, "But what about Hector?"

Hector's 'sexual direct' approach to seduction appears to be everything both indirect and classic direct are not: bold, immediate, in the girl's face, relentless. It seems to show all the cards to the girl and removes any hint of intrigue.

A brief review of how his approach appears to work might make you think it's little more than neo-direct wrapped up with a bit of spunk ('force of personality', perhaps?).

Alek asked me to resolve the apparent conflict between what he teaches and what Hector does, not knowing enough about what Hector is doing and not wanting to be the one to critique a colleague.

So, I had a chat with Hector to clarify some of the points I needed clarification on.

It led me down a rather enlightening path toward understanding not just Hector's game, but a better understanding of a key difference between good game and bad game, as well.

I think you will enjoy this piece!

When you talk to girls, it must be pleasant. You need to make them smile. That doesn’t mean be a joker, but it DOES mean be someone it’s enjoyable to talk with.

When you go out to meet women, one thing you always ought to be doing is making women smile.

I don't mean being a clown or a comedian. I don't mean you have to load them up with hammy compliments or get them retelling all their happiest memories.

I just mean that women should be smiling as they're talking to you, because they like talking to you, because talking to you is a pleasure.

Real 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.