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..

 

[KJ Francis]

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..

I can see how you made that connection... My point was if you design the game plan to prioritize early initial compliance (screener step 1 look for greens), you are narrowing the playing field before screening for her qualities.

Say you go to the bar looking for a girl who likes gangbangs so you can bring her to your lacrosse game next weekend and have her meet the guys.

If you go turn on your green radar and put all the focus there, whether the set continues past the early stage is up to her initial compliance level.

Simpler example: you like busty redheads. You approach one and test for compliance only to find she is yellow. Screener prioritizes time elsewhere only to find there are no more busty redheads in the bar. Maybe next week. Or he wants to try his hand at her but all his reference experiences are with greens and he has never had any practice getting to isolation with yellows and fails.

Therefore if you are more selective in the qualities you are screening for (instead of the goal being to get laid by any interchangeable girl above your hotness threshold), you are much better served by following a solid game plan that already plans for the possibility of your target being yellow instead of following step 1 screen her out of contention before getting to know and qualifying her.

@Teevster I tagged you because my understanding of your game is it is an indirect method that allows you to set sexual frames in a much less risky way. Then you are in the driver's seat of screening for her other qualities besides her initial compliance and interest in you.

The argument I get from Skills (sometimes) and Spike is who cares... There are other girls of your type in the venue. I thought you would agree that is missing the point of playing lower risk solid game to seduce a particular girl of interest.

Pretty simply really.

Premise: being a screener following step 1 find a green is an incomplete game plan. Perhaps a good tool for when you want to prioritize your time especially in loud venues, but is "sealing the deal" with the limited playing field of already hot leads.

In other words:

As simplified as we've tried to make everything on Girls Chase, the point was always to get girls to chase.

Not "green girls to chase." Not "only the girls who want you to chase."

But any girl.

That is what seduction is.

To seduce is to take a mind -- sometimes even a closed mind, or an initially unwilling mind -- and lead it to a place where it has come around to see your way of thinking about things.

If you can take a girl who is not initially into you, and maybe thought she might never be into you, and you can bring her around to seeing and appreciating your attractive qualities, enough that you can lead her to your bed and into intimacy, then you are a man who has become, truly, a skilled seducer.

Chase

So...
- I want a seduction skill set and solid game plan accounting for yellows
- Screener says step 1 find a green
- I call this an inferior default game plan
- "wtf are you talking about Einstein, why are you wasting everyone's time with this, we are not interested"

Yet we have barney posting a FR wondering how he could have gotten the girl he screened by putting her hands on his abs and attempting a pull before moving to isolation. And everyone said he needed to mind where she was at on the seduction timeline and build more comfort. Solid game.

 

[Teevster]

The argument I get from Skills (sometimes) and Spike is who cares... There are other girls of your type in the venue. I thought you would agree that is missing the point of playing lower risk solid game to seduce a particular girl of interest.

Yes, screening game mindset can sometimes be considered less “solid” than the usual get any girl mindset.

But in practice, most good seducers are a mix of screeners and non-screeners, depending on several factors:

1. The girl. If she’s a yellow or a red and not that hot—or not that awesome—screen her out and move on. She better be worth it if she’s a yellow, and if she’s a red, she needs to be mind-blowingly hot for me to bother.
2. The context. Some contexts make it easier to turn yellows and reds. Can you run verbals? Build social proof? Are logistics favorable? Sleazy, for instance, had to rely on screening game because of loud dance floors. Without social proof, turning a yellow or red is nearly impossible. That didn’t make him “inferior.”
3. Your mood. Sometimes you just feel like getting laid with a decently hot, cool girl without too much effort—you want to satisfice. This happens more often than you’d think. Experienced players, despite having the skill to turn most yellows and some reds, may still feel lazy. I’m guilty of that most nights. Momentum and state matter too.

You can debate categories and theories all you want, but that often drifts too far from reality.

And reality is what matters.

That’s why I find this discussion stupid.

The classic “green, yellow, red” debate was never about whether screening or non-screening is better or more “proper” pickup. It was mostly about whether reds could be turned. I’m in the camp that says yes, they can—but it’s not easy, and external factors need to align (see the three points above). Velasco and his friends maintained that “no, you can’t turn reds.” Some even hinted you couldn’t turn yellows (which is silly). They’d claim that any story of turning a red was fake—that she must have really been a green or a yellow all along. Obviously, the intent behind that kind of rhetoric is obvious.

-Teevster

 

[Skills]

I can see how you made that connection... My point was if you design the game plan to prioritize early initial compliance (screener step 1 look for greens), you are narrowing the playing field before screening for her qualities.

brother nobody is going around screening for "qualities" most screen for your "sexual type" Nobody will pass on a 10 cause she is a school drop out, i already explain this to you.... Post sex then you will screen for relationship: is she fuck buddy, girlfriend potential etc... Common fucking sense brah...

Say you go to the bar looking for a girl who likes gangbangs so you can bring her to your lacrosse game next weekend and have her meet the guys.

If you go turn on your green radar and put all the focus there, whether the set continues past the early stage is up to her initial compliance level.

Simpler example: you like busty redheads. You approach one and test for compliance only to find she is yellow. Screener prioritizes time elsewhere only to find there are no more busty redheads in the bar. Maybe next week. Or he wants to try his hand at her but all his reference experiences are with greens and he has never had any practice getting to isolation with yellows and fails.

I already explain this to you , we have a lot of different types of girls we like, there may be not a busty read hair, but a busty blonde... Also obviously if the girl is more of your type you will put more effort in the seduction, so if i only do 20 minutes average i may go 45 minutes...

Therefore if you are more selective in the qualities you are screening for (instead of the goal being to get laid by any interchangeable girl above your hotness threshold), you are much better served by following a solid game plan that already plans for the possibility of your target being yellow instead of following step 1 screen her out of contention before getting to know and qualifying her.

Depends on the dudes goal... I already said you can't really do this style of game consistently now a days...But if i have the environment like some guys have (example spike) i love this game, easy mode... I already explain in chase interview, and 50 post this game can't be done consistently now a days.... But it can still be done...

@Teevster I tagged you because my understanding of your game is it is an indirect method that allows you to set sexual frames in a much less risky way. Then you are in the driver's seat of screening for her other qualities besides her initial compliance and interest in you.

^ he answered this

The argument I get from Skills (sometimes) and Spike is who cares... There are other girls of your type in the venue. I thought you would agree that is missing the point of playing lower risk solid game to seduce a particular girl of interest.

brah the goal is getting laid with girls you find hot... who cares how...

Pretty simply really.

Premise: being a screener following step 1 find a green is an incomplete game plan. Perhaps a good tool for when you want to prioritize your time especially in loud venues, but is "sealing the deal" with the limited playing field of already hot leads.

i already told you can do screening in not loud venues, for example day game...gll did day game, so did coby and wm here we go going in circles... i done it day game... and i done it not in loud venues...

In other words:



So...
- I want a seduction skill set and solid game plan accounting for yellows
- Screener says step 1 find a green
- I call this an inferior default game plan
- "wtf are you talking about Einstein, why are you wasting everyone's time with this, we are not interested"

Yet we have barney posting a FR wondering how he could have gotten the girl he screened by putting her hands on his abs and attempting a pull before moving to isolation. And everyone said he needed to mind where she was at on the seduction timeline and build more comfort. Solid game.

barney is dude that wanted to quit to work on fundies.... and laid so fart 8-10 girls in the 8-10 range.... he laid another girl that night just lol....brah.... and his mistake has nothing to do with screening but calibration....

 

[OldGuy]

Reality is a combination:
If you are brand new, you can't even convert the greens, who don't identify anyway.
When you are advanced, you don't turn down a hot green for a less hot red unless you are practicing your seduction.
In between, you are screening for both.

 

[Teevster]

Reality is a combination:
If you are brand new, you can't even convert the greens, who don't identify anyway.
When you are advanced, you don't turn down a hot green for a less hot red unless you are practicing your seduction.
In between, you are screening for both.

Agreed, however I question the following: "you don't turn down a hot green for a less hot red unless you are practicing your seduction".

What kind of insane person would turn down a hot "green" for a less hot "red"?

What ever floats their boat I guess.


----


Also @KJ Francis,

Imagine a situation were non-screening game is unfavourable:
1. Say a loud venue. Would applying some heavy pre-approach+ post-approach screening be deemed bad game?
2. A situation where you are not in state, suffer from poor macro-momentum (you are rusty). Would you consider going for "greener" girls be bad game in this situation?
3. A situation where you have little time, you have no particular preference for any girl in the venue (e.g. consider they are all equally hot, or all equally average - or heck consider for the sake of the argument that theyall more or less equally ugly ). Would going or the "greenest" be a bad decision?

These are, in my book, rethorical questions - because to me, the answer to all these questions is a clear NO.

Things are rarely "black and white" in field. This is why I consider such discussion pretty irrelevant.

-Teevster

 

[KJ Francis]

The classic “green, yellow, red” debate was never about whether screening or non-screening is better or more “proper” pickup.

True. I am not too concerned with the naysayers, or what would be considered "proper" pickup, but more so just best practices. It seems like screening game isn't so much a conflicting school of seduction, but is a sort of contingency plan that can still fit into a greater model.

I'm not really aiming for "seduce every girl" currently, but do want to act on the assumption that every girl is at least slightly dipped into the yellow gradient. Like how you've written about over-gaming, for example as long as you fractionate properly, there's not really risk from running her through the paces. I think there is some Bruce Lee quote about not pulling punches while sparring or else you'll never really hit right when it's for real.

Common fucking sense brah...

It's just math. Assuming every girl has an equal probability of being a great LTR fit, screening for high starting compliance is by definition limiting your input by dealing with a subset/portion of girls. On top of this, the game style can be riskier and could have a lower conversion ratio. Besides arousal, the benefit is turnover speed (total throughput). So if you meet your perfect LTR fit, your chances of ending up together with that particular girl are lower despite you perhaps having a greater chance of getting laid that night by any girl.

Unless the venue is so loud that you are forced to be non-verbal or are otherwise limited by state, etc., I do not see why one would go this route other than time considerations.

i already told you can do screening in not loud venues, for example day game

Sure, it would save time. I personally would rather run a solid game plan with the highest likelihood of success for each individual girl in front of me.

Imagine a situation were non-screening game is unfavourable:

Yes these all make sense. They also seem like poor conditions. So if I am in an average situation: somewhere conducive to conversation, am generally in a good mood, have baseline momentum, have enough time, and have a particular girl of interest... well then you can call me mellow yellow, quite rightly.

I guess I am thinking less like the goal is to have the skill set to go out and get a lay. It's more like the entire journey is practice for when I see rare targets and want to execute a replicable process on her specifically.

 

[Teevster]

True. I am not too concerned with the naysayers, or what would be considered "proper" pickup, but more so just best practices. It seems like screening game isn't so much a conflicting school of seduction, but is a sort of contingency plan that can still fit into a greater model.

Or it can be a strategic choice based on how you feel, your momentum, and the venue. In a big, loud venue… screening game is usually the best option—period. This is due to the non-ideal conditions (noise, chaos etc) where you cannoy run the type of game that you describe below. However, you will have a high concentration of targets. Thus screening game is not a bad thing.

Like how you've written about over-gaming, for example as long as you fractionate properly, there's not really risk from running her through the paces. I think there is some Bruce Lee quote about not pulling punches while sparring or else you'll never really hit right when it's for real.

This is all good, but remember:

• Turning “yellow” (and especially “red”) to green can be challenging. The more negative factors working against you—shitty logistics, a loud venue, no room for social proof—the trickier it gets. And if you’re not in a perfect state yourself… well, good luck!
• This fancy “verbal” game works and can improve your meet-to-lay ratio, while reducing reliance on screening. But to run smooth verbals with good fractionation and all that, you need solid conditions.

The problem is, the field almost never offers ideal conditions. So your “good conditions” will have to do. Often, you’ll face non-ideal situations, and you just have to calibrate. Screening game is one of the many tools in your arsenal.

Bottom line: it’s more nuanced than it might seem.

Good game is to know the process. Advanced game is when you are calibrated and have good timings ("the snap" as well call it). Pro level is to work with what you got and get good/decent - even in non-ideal conditions where nobody would manage anything.

-Teevster