Passive (e.g. Screening) vs. Active Game

[KJ Francis]

that is 60 style of screening, i use different approaches, again i don't do this style of game any longer, velasco and sometimes thominho are doing it more... i do it at times...

But i was just clarifying the style of game....

Well thank you... It does seem like it has its purpose (to get you laid efficiently by one of multiple girls of interest).

Vs. your indirect method of determining her interest before introducing tension would be higher odds for each given individual girl.

Sex talk can be used for screening but that is not how I generally use it.

Exactly... You are not risking screening her out with escalation or sex talk that is telegraphing direct interest.

 

[Teevster]

I do not understand the point of this KJ debate. Been skimming through it, and it just make no sense to me. Like I do not really understand what the arguments are.

Exactly... You are not risking screening her out with escalation or sex talk that is telegraphing direct interest.

What are you talking about? Please do not try to force-frame me with what you think I do.

Sex talk can be used to screen for certain types of sexual personalities - for instance by being extremly explicit right away (to test whether she is "sexually liberated") or screen for certain sexual acts by for example talking about say anal sex, in order to see if she is a girl likely to be receptive to it. Those are examples of sex talk used for screening, and I used it more that way in the early days.

How much I screen depends on my mood, and the girl - if she is "not so hot" I will screen harder for certain personal sexual attributes. But generally I do not use it for screening. This is partly due to the fact her words rarely relect how she actually is in bed (she can say that she is inexperienced, and not into this and that... only to actually be a total nympho... and vice versa - that said those that are very detailed and explicit -the sexual freak - tend to have their sex talk reflect how they are in bed)

It can also be used to screening for interest by being a bit more direct too - even though I do not recommend it (more cons than pros).


And then we have what is often labelled as "screening game", which is about screening women for X property, but generally it is referred to screening for interested girls prior to opening. Another term that is frequently used is "sniper game".

Screening game:
1. looking for greens.
2. Be a sniper, look for AI, trigger AI (e.g. hover) in order to increase your chances of success.
3. Look for the ideal timing and ideal setting to open.

That's how 60 and sleazy were doing it.

Mass-approaching with direct openers (to look for greens) is technically a form of screening but has been historically been refered to as playing the "numbers game" or "shot-gun game" (unlike the sniper where you aim for one specific target).

It is pretty straight forward.

I still cannot grasp why this needs pages upon pages with debates.

-Teevster

 

[KJ Francis]

What are you talking about? Please do not try to force-frame me with what you think I do.

I am not at all talking about the screening for qualities (A3 or later). I am talking about the early risk of screening her out of consideration by telegraphing interest before she show interest. I.e. direct game. What I think you do is indirect game.

I still cannot grasp why this needs pages upon pages with debates.

I do not either. I do not understand at all what Skills was refuting.

Whether sniper or shotgun game, it is by default "looking for greens". Therefore it is lower odds regarding a particular "yellow" girl since you are either not bothering with her at all, or showing your interest before her interest with increased risk of rejection.

 

[Skills]

Please don't. I do not want unecessary exposure that does not contribute to anything.

-Teevster

brah! i was trolling lol.. like why ask you, just ask me, cause you don't really do much that style..I know you done it, but it was just me being sarcastic... i don't know lotario

 

[Teevster]

I am not at all talking about the screening for qualities (A3 or later).

So what are you talking about then?

I am talking about the early risk of screening her out of consideration by telegraphing interest before she show interest. I.e. direct game. What I think you do is indirect game.

I do indirect game yes. How is this relevant to the discussion about screening/non-screening? You can screen both with direct and indirect.

Or maybe you are talking about the risks involved in conveying interests too early, or too quickly or too boldly. If so it is a debate surrounding this - namely indirect vs direct game.

It is not really a debate about screening per.se?

Whether sniper or shotgun game, it is by default "looking for greens". Therefore it is lower odds regarding a particular "yellow" girl since you are either not bothering with her at all, or showing your interest before her interest with increased risk of rejection.

Screening game is:
1. looking for greens.
2. Be a sniper, look for AI, trigger AI (e.g. hover) in order to increase your chances of success.
3. Look for the ideal timing and ideal setting to open.


I cannot reckon @Skills disagreeing with this?

Are you disagreeing with this @Skills?

-Teevster

 

[Teevster]

brah! i was trolling lol.. like why ask you, just ask me, cause you don't really do much that style..I know you done it, but it was just me being sarcastic... i don't know lotario

Thank God. Last thing I want to deal with is interacting with those "tiktok" neo-"seducers".

-Teevster

 

[Skills]

So what are you talking about then?



I do indirect game yes. How is this relevant to the discussion about screening/non-screening? You can screen both with direct and indirect.

Or maybe you are talking about the risks involved in conveying interests too early, or too quickly or too boldly. If so it is a debate surrounding this - namely indirect vs direct game.

It is not really a debate about screening per.se?



Screening game is:
1. looking for greens.
2. Be a sniper, look for AI, trigger AI (e.g. hover) in order to increase your chances of success.
3. Look for the ideal timing and ideal setting to open.


I cannot reckon @Skills disagreeing with this?

Are you disagreeing with this @Skills?

-Teevster

yes is actually no wasting too much time (this going by feel and experience) for example when i was doing this game in about 20 minutes i could see if i had something if i was in set 45 minutes and the compliance, escalation and arousal (emotional or physical) was not progressing and i knew i did not have it, i would exchange contact and move on(or clear bad logistics)... is no neo direct or blow me in blow me out...

also kj francias assume that since the girl was ons (she would not make good relationship candidate) some weird madrona whore stuff...

 

[Teevster]

yes is actually no wasting too much time (this going by feel and experience) for example when i was doing this game in about 20 minutes i could see if i had something if i was in set 45 minutes and the compliance, escalation and arousal (emotional or physical) was not progressing and i knew i did not have it, i would exchange contact and move on(or clear bad logistics)... is no neo direct or blow me in blow me out...

OK, I am totally lost now.

How does this relate to "screening" vs "non-screening" game?

I would usually do the same, although not take the number (even though I should). What I usually do in those cases is to re-engage later. When I do, I often realize that the overall vibe has changed - for better or worse. In small-sized venues, moving on and approaching other women can lead to social proof, which may change things fully.

Still unsure how this relates to the screening vs non-screening game debate?

Guess what, I do not want to find out because I am not going to enter anoter back-n-forth.

-Teevster

 

[Skills]

OK, I am totally lost now.

How does this relate to "screening" vs "non-screening" game?

I would usually do the same, although not take the number (even though I should). What I usually do in those cases is to re-engage later. When I do, I often realize that the overall vibe has changed - for better or worse. In small-sized venues, moving on and approaching other women can lead to social proof, which may change things fully.

Still unsure how this relates to the screening vs non-screening game debate?

Guess what, I do not want to find out because I am not going to enter anoter back-n-forth.

-Teevster

Yes is a dumb debate

 

[KJ Francis]

If so it is a debate surrounding this - namely indirect vs direct game.

It is not really a debate about screening per.se?

Yes my post 55:

Isn't it just a direct vs indirect discussion? If you go 60 style and introduce tension (telegraphing intent) before an IOI, isn't that non-verbal direct game? And if she doesn't bite, at a certain point you are rejected.

Vs. Indirect wait for IOI before showing interest. Sex talk without physically escalating too early, etc. Vs. 60 escalation is in the early game, regardless of IOI. Introduces risk.

also kj francias assume that since the girl was ons (she would not make good relationship candidate)

not true AT ALL. this was from spike when I said you are simply leaving opportunity on the table by ignoring girls who don't give AI's. a shy, studious med student going home to bed early was just one hypothetical example.

You can screen both with direct and indirect.

This is what I learned from Skills in this thread. I have been talking about direct physical game that uses physical escalation as an early screen to test her interest before she communicates it. Whereas Skills says he waits until after her interest to introduce tension (indirect).

If "screening" can be indirect, it does not sound like an alternate form of game, just simply "having awareness" like everyone should regardless, and making the decision on a given night to prioritize higher initial compliance over a potentially more desirable target.

So you still need "active game" for higher odds if you encounter a girl of particular quality who is potentially "yellow".

 

[Teevster]

Yes my post 55:'

I still cannot make sense of what the conversation is about, and why I must be dragged into it in some form of triangulation.

This is what I learned from Skills in this thread. I have been talking about direct physical game that uses physical escalation as an early screen to test her interest before she communicates it. Whereas Skills says he waits until after her interest to introduce tension (indirect).

Yeah, both works. I would prefer going for Skills (and 60's) style (60 would approach with some very indirect "humble approach", test for interest and then build up the tension.

And then you have Sleazy's style which is to target select for ages before opening - which would almost ensure that the ones he opened would be "interested" so that he could escalate things quickly with low risk. Sleazy's approach was designed to do things fully non-verbal (I have only seen Sleazy run a set verbally once in his prime - and it was OK) since he was doing loud venues only. 60 is not a dancefloor guy. He would open somewhat verbally.

Both would test compliance at every step. Thats their magic. That's ensures calibration. Nobody was more calibrated in his escalation than Sleazy.

The strategy you opt for is more aligned with the numbers game/caveman style, which is risky, and not ideal because it can lead to explicit rejections. Can only be use in venues that are chaotic - where you will not be seen getting potentially rejected.

But here too Sleazy's more passive approach is in my opinion more ideal.

Does this make sense?

Still not sure what the discussion is about really.

-Teevster

 

[Teevster]

not true AT ALL. this was from spike when I said you are simply leaving opportunity on the table by ignoring girls who don't give AI's.

That is technially hard screening game. That is the more cookie cutter definition of it. This is Sleazy style.

I did chat with 60 a year or so ago, and he did say he did look for AIs too, but Sleazy was taking this to a whole new level.

However, 60 would be more liberal with who he approached and mostly test for compliance post-opening. Sleazy would put more emphasis on testing prior to opening. Yet both would test for compliance throughout the interactions (everybody should do that), however Sleazy would put a lot more emphasis on pre-opening. This is because he was going full non-verbal on dancefloor (despite never dancing himself LOL). 60 was operating in lounges mostly and would run a very minimalistic form of verbal game.

Sleazy only ran verbal game (to my knowledge) when I forced him to head into a bar.

-Teevster

 

[Skills]

Yes my post 55:




not true AT ALL. this was from spike when I said you are simply leaving opportunity on the table by ignoring girls who don't give AI's. a shy, studious med student going home to bed early was just one hypothetical example.

This is what I learned from Skills in this thread. I have been talking about direct physical game that uses physical escalation as an early screen to test her interest before she communicates it. Whereas Skills says he waits until after her interest to introduce tension (indirect).

If "screening" can be indirect, it does not sound like an alternate form of game, just simply "having awareness" like everyone should regardless, and making the decision on a given night to prioritize higher initial compliance over a potentially more desirable target.

So you still need "active game" for higher odds if you encounter a girl of particular quality who is potentially "yellow".

I specially quoted the post were your words show maddona whore complex, and i said who wrote this and quoted you having Madonna whore... She introverted studious girls go to clubs and bars... They look at you and when u look they look away fast, for example..