Add new comment | Girls Chase

Add new comment

Chase Amante's picture


Excellent and thoughtful points!

I'd wrap up the time element under 'effort' from the article above. But you're right, I didn't go into that much.

Dating apps can be more or less time-consuming depending on how you use them. If you're very efficient about it, have excellent pictures, and tightened down online game, for sure, you can set up more dates faster than what a guy who's efficient, with good fundamentals, and good game can reliably produce with cold approach. (the friend taking 7 hours to make 20 daytime approaches is not being efficient, by the way... that's one approach every 21 minutes! Unless he took several of these women onto insta-dates, in which case it makes more sense. If not though, he either needs to get more aggressive in his approaching, or find a better venue with more women to approach. He wants to at least aim to cut that in half)

The flip side is there are a great many guys who are not very efficient, lack excellent pictures, and do not have tightened down online game. These guys can fall into the trap of sinking far more time into apps than even most obsessed cold approachers spend on meeting women. I've seen a lot of cases of guys being on their phones all day, every day, swiping on matches, talking with women they match, trying to set up dates, to the point where it affects their jobs or school because it is too distracting. Usually these guys are getting few dates, often with women they aren't that thrilled about, too. Which only seems to incentivize this behavior more: "I have to keep swiping and spend even more time on this to get the really worthwhile girls!"

The other thing to weigh is the opportunity cost. Let's say your average cold approach lay is 7.5 on the 10-point scale and it costs you twelve hours of preparing, commuting, approaching, and dating (including approaches and dates where it doesn't work out) to get such a lay. Then let's say your average dating app lay is a 6 on the 10-point scale and it costs you eight hours of swiping, messaging, and dating (including conversations and dates where it doesn't work out) to get such a lay. So you can get a 6.0 for eight hours of work or a 7.5 for 12 hours of work. Where's your energy better spent? That's going to depend a lot on the guy. (of course, if you're very good at one of this and not the greatest at the other, your numbers may be more skewed than this... maybe you can get 6.5s from online and only 7s from real life. Or you get 8s in real life and can't do better than 5.5s online. It'll be a different story if either's the case for you)

Regarding quality, I was able to hide my poor fundamentals online by taking deceptively good photos. Doing this, I got some exciting ladies with e.g. lots of interesting interests, a passion for art or science, a well-directioned career, lots of intelligence etc. out on dates. I found that being an interesting guy yourself can actually get you quite far online. They weren't ugly either. In my daygame adventures, I have found that a guy is totally at the mercy of his fundamentals. If he does not look good, the woman he approaches will feel charmed and happy at his direct opener, but then hit him with "thank you for that; I have to go" very soon. Posture, voice, eye contact, dress etc. has, for me, only served to improve the reception to the direct opener. It hasn't turned a no girl into a yes girl, but rather turned a no girl into a polite and happy no girl. And there "I have to go" girls were much less exciting than the ones I find online! The point is that maybe an interesting, successful or socially savvy guy can do better online than he would in real life, where only his fundamentals, and none of those other things matter.

Yeah, that's interesting.

I'm the opposite from you. I haven't had the experience of having met an intelligent, successful, passionate, stable woman who also looked good over online. I've met some who were seemingly the earlier stuff, but not particularly attractive. And plenty of attractive (a handful of very attractive) ones who were dead broke, batshit crazy, tattooed, single mothers, etc.

On the other hand, I've met a lot of beautiful, successful, intelligent, highly educated women who weren't broken/crazy via both night and day game. Lots of women with master's degrees (a strong requirement for me to consider a girl for a girlfriend role). I almost seem to have a magnet for them.

I can imagine if my experience was reversed to yours, I'd be gung-ho about online too! We seem to have opposite experiences here.

Thirdly, you do indeed find more victimized or eccentric ladies online. But consider that not all ladies are open to going on a date with a guy who they met on the street. If we restrict to the ladies who are open to it, do you think that we might find a higher prevalence of eccentric or victimized ladies? Just something to consider.

Well, you get a higher percentage of high openness to new experiences, impulsiveness, romanticism, and other such characteristics among women you successfully cold approach. Less open, impulsive, romantic, etc. women in general are just more onguard to approaches by strangers and it's much harder to crack them before they excuse themselves and leave.

Yet, just like you note you do "indeed find more" victimized or eccentric chicks online, I doubt you'd find anyone who'll argue the same about, say, meeting girls on the street. Women who are nuts are easier no matter where you meet them, street, club, friends, or online. But their prevalence in online is at least an order of magnitude greater than what you'll find even with nightlife, which is itself an order of magnitude greater than what you'll find with daytime. Online serves as a concentrator for crazy as well. I don't want to pull numbers out of the air, but... if we say on average crazy girls make up 4 out of 100 women out and about during the daytime, and they are 2x as likely to be responsive to you, that means 8 out of 100 successful dates you secure via daytime will be nuts. Meanwhile if on average crazy girls make up 25 out of 100 women online (I think it's higher than this, but let's just say it's 1/4), and are 1.5x as likely to be responsive to you here, that means 38 out of 100 successful dates you secure via online will be nuts. I don't know what the real numbers are, but these numbers feel very roughly correct to me based on my experiences.

Anyway, this is only from my experience of doing direct daygame on the weekends. I have not tried other real life avenues yet. E.g. social circle could be a world of difference. Overall, I think that you're being too harsh on online.

Social circle's highly variable based on the circle... if you're in a nightlife after-party circle, a lot of nuts there, though probably not quite as bad as online. If you're in a feminist trannsexual LGBTQ+ circle, it's going to be worse than online. If it's just a normal cool people circle with attractive women with half-decent jobs where the circle doesn't tolerate messed up behavior you'll have few/no crazy people and can have higher odds of landing an attractive, sane, normal woman than anywhere else (though you won't have near the quantity of online or cold approach. All the big, high turnover social circles have much higher prevalences of crazy chicks, usually near the higher end of what you see with nightlife).

But yeah, sounds like we have different experiences. If online's working for you and you're specialized in it and happy with your results with it, I think that's a very excellent thing!