Ghosty number troubleshooting

[HammerEditor]

I would normally post this in the 'Beginner' section but since this seems technical, I'd appreciate more advanced opinions on this.

I've encountered a sticking point where almost every phone # I get never responds.

I've started pickup 2 months ago and have done 65 sets so far (60 day, 5 night). The 60 daygame sets are from 2 large university campuses where I'm not a student, but look like one. I don't lie about not being a student; I claim I'm there to visit a friend, use the dining hall, take a walk, etc.

I would say when it comes to my looks I'm a 7/10. I dress better than 95% of the other dudes on campus but not outlandish. My height is 6'2". I'm slightly overweight (19% body fat) but have decent muscle. My age is 24.

I usually do a direct approach, stack 2 or 3 assumptions about her, go into a normal conversation, inject premise from time to time with emotional spikes, try evaluating, try a number close & suggest hanging out, talk for 2 more minutes, then leave. My strategy is basically the London Daygame Model mixed with Todd's open-premise-evaluate-close.

My results:

• 28 seated sets, 32 walking
• Most of them are 7/10 looks with a few 6's and 8's
• 75% blowout rate for walking, 25% for seated
• 15 attempts to close
• 40% rejection rate on the close, mostly with 'I have a boyfriend'
• 9 successful number closes (3 walking/6 seated), with one girl closing me
• 8 numbers never replied to first text, 1 replied but fizzled out and never led to a date
• My approach-to-number rate now seems to be 1 in 5 or 1 in 6

I listened to the recordings and my opens were weak until set 20 (now fixed), my delivery was subpar until set 40 (now fixed), but I still ask too many boring biographical questions (working on it).

My concern is not the number of rejections I'm getting. That's expected with direct game and for a beginner. I don't care if 95% of my approaches end in rejection as long as 5% lead to a date.

What I'm worried about is the ghosty numbers I get. I think I'm doing something wrong in-set if only 1 out of 9 numbers responded. My gut feeling is the girls are attracted in the moment but the next day, they realize I'm a random stranger who's not in their social circles.

I don't think my text game explains it. I can upload screenshots if necessary. It must be something I'm screwing up in the initial pickup. Most of the time I've been in set for 3-5 minutes before closing, then talking for 2 minutes after. Of course I've sent 'revival' type texts 1-2 days after the first non-response, but those never worked.

Is it expected that most numbers a beginner gets are ghosty? Is this normal until I get to an intermediate level? The advice I've gotten is just to run higher quality interactions.

I've heard that a normal #-to-date ratio for daygame is 20% to 40%. But I'm not even getting responses, let alone flakes, so I have nothing to work with.

Side question: should I try to close more often? I usually only try after a couple of minutes of back-and-forth when the girl at least isn't pushing me away and I've gotten a giggle or two out of her.

 

[ulrich]

If you’re running a game that is too direct this could be expected… we would need to read more about your interactions to accurately gauge where you’re dropping the ball.
Could you describe your best 3 interactions?

A quick troubleshoot:

1) Change your direct openers to situational openers.
2) You’re probably ejecting before reaching the hook. Stay longer in sets.
3) Make sure your attainability is not too high. Do you come as too playerish/rehearsed?
4) Go for instant dates instead of numbers when possible.
5) Send icebreaker texts 30-60 minutes after getting the number. Don’t wait one full day.

 

[Kaida]

Make sure your attainability is not too high. Do you come as too playerish/rehearsed?

Quick question: wouldn’t that make attainability too low?

 

[ulrich]

Quick question: wouldn’t that make attainability too low?

You’re correct!
I woke up dyslexic today

 

[HammerEditor]

If you’re running a game that is too direct this could be expected… we would need to read more about your interactions to accurately gauge where you’re dropping the ball.

I use 'Hey, excuse me' as a pre-opener, then "You actually look quite cute" or "You have an adorable look" or "It was so cute when you did that thing". Chase did say in this article that direct game is better for college campuses. Should I try switching to indirect game?

Could you describe your best 3 interactions?

1. Set #44: the girl is immediately turned on by me approaching, giggles throughout the whole interaction, starts asking me questions 1 minute in, qualifies herself once. I find out she has to go soon. 3 minutes in, I suggest having lunch together. She agrees, then offers me Instagram, I say I don't have that, she gives me her number, calls me immediately, then we part ways. This chick is the one that closed me
2. Set #21: This one was more platonic and had less emotional signs of attraction. We talk for 7 minutes and find out we have lots of commonalities (growing up in the same city, both studied subject X). I then ask for her number, she gives it... I immediately text over my name. Then we continue talking for 3-4 minutes, I say 'I have to go' and leave. It's possible this set was not hooked
3. Set #65: Probably the best one. Immediately attracted after I approach, giggles quite a bit, responds to my spikes, lots of cultural similarities, I ask for number after 6 minutes. She gives it, then I keep talking for 2-3 minutes, then leave saying I have to see my friend. This set was definitely hooked within the first minute

2) You’re probably ejecting before reaching the hook. Stay longer in sets.

Is it true that the hook point is when she asks 2 personal questions about me? Under that definition, half of my number close sets are hooked while the other half aren't.

3) Make sure your attainability is not too high. Do you come as too playerish/rehearsed?

The only part I repeat is the opener and premise line. I come up with assumptions on her outfit/personality on the spot, then freestyle the conversation from there. I do use a few premise push-pull or neg lines here and there, but it's customized to the girl. In total, 20% is rehearsed and 80% is random.
I don't try to be playerish; I rarely talk about other girls, I don't talk about game in game or imply that I approach a lot. Sometimes it accidentally comes out.

4) Go for instant dates instead of numbers when possible.

This isn't possible most of the time because either the girl has to run to class or I have to go back to work. But I can definitely try screening every single time after getting the #.

5) Send icebreaker texts 30-60 minutes after getting the number. Don’t wait one full day.

I have only done this for 2 of the closes, while for the other 7, I texted the next day. I will do this every time from now on.

 

[HammerEditor]

Here are some opinions I got from chat as well:

fog: cold approach doesnt exist at school campuses
fog: when you game at campus you are doing warm approaches since it is a giant social circle
fog: and you are shooting yourself in the foot by not lying and saying you go to schoolthere
fog: thats why the chicks arent responding
fog: they have no way to relate to you at a social level

trashcan: campus cold approach I’ve had better luck instant dating and going for pulls than phone numbers or social media
trashcan: If she was hot and ready or even on the fence didn’t matter…phone was low odds. Logistics are all lined up and or I persist and pull or instant date and all was well
trashcan: Only chick I’ve had successfully day 2 on phone was social circle girls or a very ugly chick I cold approached…my results don’t have to be yours though
HammerEditor: @trashcan so you've had the same bad luck with phone closes on campus?
trashcan: mixture of bad skill and luck but yes and currently so as well
trashcan: If I take a contact close I’m basically just saying goodbye forever with my precedent. I see them at a party, just walking around, or etc and I go for instant date or pull and the fun begins

 

[ulrich]

@HammerEditor, well your technique seems quite good, I am actually surprised.
You sure got most of it quiet polished down. Congratulations.

Chase did say in this article that direct game is better for college campuses. Should I try switching to indirect game?

Not necessarily. I thought you were running neo-direct (“I think you’re hot”) kind of approaches but your openers are calibrated to the venue and low pressure even while direct.

You could experiment with complimenting her style but I doubt it will make a huge difference.

Is it true that the hook point is when she asks 2 personal questions about me? Under that definition, half of my number close sets are hooked while the other half aren't.

No, that is an oversimplification.

This is the part that looks off to me from your descriptions.

You reach the hook point when a girls moves from curious or startled to interested and excited to meet you.
In the initial interaction she might be curious about you or ask questions to gauge who you are… this is good but you are still not there.

A girl is hooked once she drops the inquisitiveness and starts making efforts to qualify herself and relate to you (“you know, I like meeting people too” or “I like your style”).

If she is asking questions or even complimenting you in order to figure you out then she has not dropped her reservations yet. You are still pre-hook.

Once you get post-hook, you need to qualify her and seed the date.

If you add those three changes, you should see your results increase significantly.

1) Stay until you reach the hook
2) Qualify her
3) Seed the date

The only part I repeat is the opener and premise line. I come up with assumptions on her outfit/personality on the spot, then freestyle the conversation from there. I do use a few premise push-pull or neg lines here and there, but it's customized to the girl. In total, 20% is rehearsed and 80% is random.
I don't try to be playerish; I rarely talk about other girls, I don't talk about game in game or imply that I approach a lot. Sometimes it accidentally comes out.

Could you be coming off as a player with your fashion style or mannerisms?

This isn't possible most of the time because either the girl has to run to class or I have to go back to work. But I can definitely try screening every single time after getting the #.

Yeah, this one is worth trying.

I have only done this for 2 of the closes, while for the other 7, I texted the next day. I will do this every time from now on.

Good.

 

[HammerEditor]

@HammerEditor, well your technique seems quite good, I am actually surprised.
You sure got most of it quiet polished down. Congratulations.

It sounds very polished on paper, but I'm really just a beginner and most of my sets don't work out exactly like that technique. I usually have delivery problems, the teases come off contrived, I DLV, I accidentally sound like a player, and so on.

You reach the hook point when a girls moves from curious or startled to interested and excited to meet you.
In the initial interaction she might be curious about you or ask questions to gauge who you are… this is good but you are still not there.

A girl is hooked once she drops the inquisitiveness and starts making efforts to qualify herself and relate to you (“you know, I like meeting people too” or “I like your style”).

If she is asking questions or even complimenting you in order to figure you out then she has not dropped her reservations yet. You are still pre-hook.

Under this definition I think I got maybe 1 or 2 out of the 9 sets truly hooked. The other ones were just 'curious' or giggled a bit, which doesn't count.

Could you be coming off as a player with your fashion style or mannerisms?

My clothing is business casual. I wear tight-fitting patterned long sleeve shirts, Levi jeans and casual brown leather shoes. Here's an example. My haircut is what you'd expect from a 20-something professional; I get it every month. If anything, I come off as slightly nerdy with my mannerisms.

If you add those three changes, you should see your results increase significantly.

1) Stay until you reach the hook
2) Qualify her
3) Seed the date

I 100% agree. I haven't even started the evaluation phase of game yet.

I talked to my pick-up coach this morning and ran the audio by him. He said the problem is one thing: value. My delivery issues, clumsy use of spikes and occasional DLV are slowing down the rate I build value at.

If these sets were 15+ minutes long, he said I would get a hook eventually. But since these are just 5-minute interactions, I rarely end up with enough to value to hook the set. Without the hook, I can't even go into evaluation mode. Without evaluation, I can't crystallize her elevated emotions into seeding a date. And that's where my game reaches a dead end...

My coach said the reason I'm getting numbers in the first place is many girls will hand out their numbers because refusing is too uncomfortable. I have been misinterpreting them giving their # as a sign of having built enough value.

Therefore, I need to focus on value more than anything else to improve my game, because that's the only way to reach the later stages. Staying longer in set would also help in the few cases where it's possible.

I really appreciate your detailed thought-out explanations, bro. I feel like I understand the problem now.

 

[ulrich]

It sounds very polished on paper, but I'm really just a beginner and most of my sets don't work out exactly like that technique. I usually have delivery problems, the teases come off contrived, I DLV, I accidentally sound like a player, and so on.

It will come in time.
At least your understanding looks pretty decent so you got that going for you.

Under this definition I think I got maybe 1 or 2 out of the 9 sets truly hooked. The other ones were just 'curious' or giggled a bit, which doesn't count.

Yup. Seems like you’re ejecting your interactions too soon.
Now you got something to work on.

Why You Eject from Talking to Girls Too Soon (Plus How to Stop)

A lot of guys bail out of their interactions with women too soon. How do you stop ejecting from women, and start winning with them? The worst thing to come out of most guys' mouths when dealing with women is: "Well, it was nice to meet you." This is the classic bail out ejection line of the...

www.girlschase.com

My clothing is business casual. I wear tight-fitting patterned long sleeve shirts, Levi jeans and casual brown leather shoes. Here's an example. My haircut is what you'd expect from a 20-something professional; I get it every month. If anything, I come off as slightly nerdy with my mannerisms.

Thats good. Attractive yet attainable.

I 100% agree. I haven't even started the evaluation phase of game yet.

I talked to my pick-up coach this morning and ran the audio by him. He said the problem is one thing: value. My delivery issues, clumsy use of spikes and occasional DLV are slowing down the rate I build value at.

If these sets were 15+ minutes long, he said I would get a hook eventually. But since these are just 5-minute interactions, I rarely end up with enough to value to hook the set. Without the hook, I can't even go into evaluation mode. Without evaluation, I can't crystallize her elevated emotions into seeding a date. And that's where my game reaches a dead end...

I’m a little weary of interpreting everything as a value problem since it can lead to huge bias in a lot of guys who don’t grasp the concept of attainability.

However, your coach and I agree in that the hook is not there and that is what you need to work the most on

My coach said the reason I'm getting numbers in the first place is many girls will hand out their numbers because refusing is too uncomfortable. I have been misinterpreting them giving their # as a sign of having built enough value.

There’s also the possibility that they actually liked you but because the interaction was cut short and you didn’t comfort them enough, they were left slightly startled.
After that, when they receive your message, they think of you as that confident guy who makes them feel uneasy and they rather avoid you.

Whatever feeling reigns in the interaction gets associated to you… that’s why you don’t want to eject before seeding positive associations.

I really appreciate your detailed thought-out explanations, bro. I feel like I understand the problem now.

You’re welcome

 

[HammerEditor]

Yup. Seems like you’re ejecting your interactions too soon.
Now you got something to work on.

This is one reason I like seated sets around lunchtime now. The girls are in no rush so it's easier to stay longer. A girl walking from class to class is very hard and I really don't do walking sets anymore, since the supply of seated sets is good enough.

There’s also the possibility that they actually liked you but because the interaction was cut short and you didn’t comfort them enough, they were left slightly startled.
After that, when they receive your message, they think of you as that confident guy who makes them feel uneasy and they rather avoid you.

I did ask my coach. He said it's much more likely I need more value than more comfort. "They aren't seeing you as a sexual prospect". It also looks to me like these chicks are always more comfortable in set that I am.

When it comes to attainability, I think I'm not doing terribly bad. I'm not a student but at least I'm familiar with how college works, I'm only a couple years older, I come from an upper-class family, etc. Regardless, I can't change those things.

Could mentioning my profession (engineering) in half my sets be hurting either my value or attainability? It definitely sounds like a providery move.

How can I diagnose if my attainability is too high or too low? My gut feeling is it's too high because of the lack of value in my game.

 

[ulrich]

How can I diagnose if my attainability is too high or too low? My gut feeling is it's too high because of the lack of value in my game.

I think it’s kinda pointless worrying about attainability at this point because your interactions are too short.
You don’t have enough information to make an informed assessment.

The rule of thumb is:
+ Is she turning you down gently and offering you join the friend-zone? - Your attainability is too high.

+ Was she hot for you at some point and then she suddenly went cold and stopped caring for you? - Your attainability is too low.

+ Is she utterly indifferent to you? Your value is low.

 

[HammerEditor]

The rule of thumb is:
+ Is she turning you down gently and offering you join the friend-zone? - Your attainability is too high.

+ Was she hot for you at some point and then she suddenly went cold and stopped caring for you? - Your attainability is too low.

+ Is she utterly indifferent to you? Your value is low.

It's confusing because none of these three seem to happen to me, but like you said, my sets are too short and have no sexual hook so I can't tell. I won't worry about attainability for a while then.

---

Also, I noticed I rarely ever get shit tests. Is this a sign of not hooking or not displaying enough value?

Yesterday I finally did a set where I got a TON of shit tests. It happened to be my longest set yet. I discussed it in chat:

HammerEditor: @Teevster "open, chat, ask for number... and hope for the best, they never get faced with a situation where frame dynamics becomes so clear" Maybe this explains why I rarely got shit tests

Like

Reactions: View
Yesterday at 9:42 PM
Teevster: yupp
Yesterday at 9:42 PM
HammerEditor: Because today I had my longest set ever (16 min.). The girl was nice in the first 8 minutes, but the second half was a barrage of shit tests!
Yesterday at 9:42 PM
Teevster: because you never created a seductive dynamic
Yesterday at 9:42 PM
Teevster: 0 frames
Yesterday at 9:43 PM
Teevster: thus nothing to test you on
Yesterday at 9:43 PM
HammerEditor: Finally at the end, she said 'I'm quite into you'

Is it a good idea for me to try to provoke shit tests? I'm not afraid of shit tests at all and I'm confident I can learn to pass them. How do I induce shit tests? I'm thinking it's a way to get the most out of 5-minute sets where the girl genuinely has to leave.

 

[ulrich]

It's confusing because none of these three seem to happen to me, but like you said, my sets are too short and have no sexual hook so I can't tell. I won't worry about attainability for a while then.

Yeah, it’s the wrong tool to diagnose because you’re not even having complete interactions yet.

---

Also, I noticed I rarely ever get shit tests. Is this a sign of not hooking or not displaying enough value?

Yesterday I finally did a set where I got a TON of shit tests. It happened to be my longest set yet. I discussed it in chat:

Is it a good idea for me to try to provoke shit tests? I'm not afraid of shit tests at all and I'm confident I can learn to pass them. How do I induce shit tests? I'm thinking it's a way to get the most out of 5-minute sets where the girl genuinely has to leave.

You’re having a flawed conception of how seduction works.

Right now you seem to be thinking that you have to approach, run steps 1 to 15, ask for her number and then you will get a date.

I understand the appeal of that model but is flawed.

Seduction is about creating, awakening and uncovering feelings in the girls you talk to.
You have to take them through an emotional progression.

For example:
Startled at the approach —> uneasy about you —> curious about you —> comfortable with your presence —> excited to meet you —> interested in doing something with you —> yada yada yada

Wether you get zero or ten shit tests is not the point.
You could trigger them but doing so can be uncalibrated if you don't get what is going through her mind.
Calibration is the ultimate skill.

Is it good that you got shit tests in that specific interaction?
Yes, because you were ejecting too early and this is evidence that you stayed longer for this last one.

Is it good that you get shit tests in general?
Not necessarily and each situation is context dependent.

 

[HammerEditor]

You’re having a flawed conception of how seduction works.

Right now you seem to be thinking that you have to approach, run steps 1 to 15, ask for her number and then you will get a date.

I understand the appeal of that model but is flawed.

Seduction is about creating, awakening and uncovering feelings in the girls you talk to.
You have to take them through an emotional progression.

For example:
Startled at the approach —> uneasy about you —> curious about you —> comfortable with your presence —> excited to meet you —> interested in doing something with you —> yada yada yada

This is the part I keep having trouble with. I'm a cerebral logical person. I write computer code for a living. I try to 'diagnose', 'fix' and 'inspect' things instead of using emotional intuition. That's why I fell for Todd's System and LDM in the first place. I keep approaching pick-up in terms of techniques.

I don't know any other way of developing the calibration you speak of other than just practicing. I'll go back through my recordings and think about this progression. I don't think I ever got past the 'comfortable with your presence' stage except for yesterday.

Is it good that you got shit tests in that specific interaction?
Yes, because you were ejecting too early and this is evidence that you stayed longer for this last one.

Is it good that you get shit tests in general?
Not necessarily and each situation is context dependent.

Is running longer sets the only surefire way to go through the emotional progression? I feel like I'm making some mistake that is slowing it down. Maybe I'm not using enough spikes or imposing my frame enough. After the 2-minute mark it's always just normal get-to-know-you conversation with some flirting thrown in. This 16-minute interaction was no different except for the length; I really didn't do anything special. Was it just the length that could have made the difference?

 

[ulrich]

This is the part I keep having trouble with. I'm a cerebral logical person. I write computer code for a living. I try to 'diagnose', 'fix' and 'inspect' things instead of using emotional intuition. That's why I fell for Todd's System and LDM in the first place. I keep approaching pick-up in terms of techniques.

I don't know any other way of developing the calibration you speak of other than just practicing. I'll go back through my recordings and think about this progression. I don't think I ever got past the 'comfortable with your presence' stage except for yesterday.

No worries, it will come in time.

With enough practice, your “algorithm” will eventually evolve into something more robust where you are constantly scanning the girl’s state and choosing the appropriate “subroutine” to move her to the next stage.

Your instincts are literally designed and optimized to pick women’s signals.
You just need to learn to listen to them and some real (not theoretical) experience on what effects you can cause with your actions.

Just think about that for the moment and try “inspect” and “fix” your interactions not from “what was the correct next move?” but rather the “how was she feeling?” perspective.

Is running longer sets the only surefire way to go through the emotional progression?

No.

There is not a hard rule of how much an interaction should last.
Many guys here have stories of fucking a girl in less than 15 minutes.

That being said, in order to do that, you need a combination of masterful calibration, godlike fundamentals, advanced female psychology understanding, great logistics and luck.
At the moment you lack all of them so there is no point on worrying about the “optimal” duration.

For you, a better paradigm would be “my interactions will last what they need to last”.

Take the time you need to make women feel comfortable with your presence… take the time you need to show your value… take the time you need to get them excited… and take the time you need solving objections.
If that is 5 or 50 minutes, that’s not important.

Focus on making the girl feel what she needs to feel and your results will transform.

After the 2-minute mark it's always just normal get-to-know-you conversation with some flirting thrown in.

That’s how most interactions are going to look like.
Perfectly normal.

 

[HammerEditor]

Once again, the detailed explanations are really helping me, man.

Just think about that for the moment and try “inspect” and “fix” your interactions not from “what was the correct next move?” but rather the “how was she feeling?” perspective.

I finished listening to all my sets with this in mind. I heard a lot of 'Nice to meet you", "That's interesting", "That's really cool", and giggles. The impression the girls probably got was I was the street clown, amusing myself and entertaining them; but rarely giving off a seductive vibe. I didn't leave enough silences, and I definitely didn't make seductive eye contact when delivering my teases. My attention was always focused on carrying the conversation instead of 'feeling out' the girl.

I couldn't feel any sexual tension when replaying the audio, and definitely not from my memories of being in set. Another thing is I hardly ever felt sexually aroused in set myself. If I'm not turned on, how can she be? I hardly ever get on her mating radar, so I think that explains the absence of shit tests.

In contrast, I just came across this scene. His eye contact, low pitched voice and pauses build sexual tension even though he can't come up with things to say.

I think this is the element I may be missing in my game. I'm not creating a sexual vibe or tension. I found a few GC articles on this stuff and I'll start applying them next time I go out. I'm probably wrong, but I might as well try something new since my current approach has failed! Time to 'get off the interstate' and admire the scenery.

Take the time you need to make women feel comfortable with your presence… take the time you need to show your value… take the time you need to get them excited… and take the time you need solving objections.

I'll try, but it's just tough doing this in a daygame environment. I face a lot of time constraints at least during weekdays. I'll try gaming this weekend. Even if the volume is lower, girls will be less busy so insta-dating is likely to work.

 

[HammerEditor]

I finally found some hard numbers on college daygame.
A.G. Hayden was on a livestream interview and he said the following things. He's the only PUA I have heard of who has a lot of experience/content gaming at colleges specifically:

• With good game, you can get a number from up to 1 in 2 approaches
• He himself gets a date from 1 in 5 numbers
• A beginner can get a date from 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 numbers
• An experienced PUA can get "2x to 3x" that (1-in-3 to 1-in-10)
• With good game, a "5 to 10 minute" set should be enough to get a girl on a date

Therefore, it now makes sense to me why 8 out of my 9 number closes never responded. I wouldn't be surprised if I stood at even lower than 1-in-20 last semester. If A.G. Hayden is correct, what I went through last semester was completely normal for an absolute beginner in a campus environment. It's reassuring that I'm not alone.

To improve those odds, I already sought advice on how to solidify my sets in general:

1. On the open, don't break eye contact until she does first
2. Speak from my throat in order to deepen my voice
3. Insert more pauses instead of blurting out the next thing, to give her chances to invest in the convo
4. Be more cocky throughout the set and instigate more
5. Start using open loops. Switch topics as soon as she invests in one thread
6. Start using sexual frames or mention sex-adjacent topics
7. Don't end the set prematurely until I'm certain she likes me.
8. After getting a hook, start doing evaluation/qualification
9. When asking her out, use a 'yes' ladder. Probe her schedule too

I'll work on one skill at a time. This semester, my goal is 120 daygame sets, which should be enough volume to cover all these points. I'm confident that after I learn to do these things properly + consistently, I'll reliably start getting dates in the fall semester.