Statistical game

[DeepShadow]

i was reading @Chase new article https://www.girlschase.com/article/tactics-tuesdays-opener-cycling and one thing came to mind.

Why not make a list of the most statistically successful things in each thing and stage?

For example of the 3 openings in the article, we could identify the 3 most statistically successful openings. For example, say that 1 has a hit rate of 38%, 2 of 32% and 3 of 25%. in total so you will have 85% success, clearly it is not so mathematical also because it depends on the amount of data and other things but I hope the concept is passed.

I think if someone had devised a statistical course on this he would have made a lot of money not because he would have been the best but because he would have made fuck more on average easier. Teaching a method to become calibrated and climb towards the path of the advanced has ups and downs and a path that is better in the long run, but not everyone has the energy and desire to become advanced.

And a statistical route would be the most effective and most satisfying one. it's a bit like seeing which fighting style is efficient between something like aikido / kung fu versus something street style boxing or krav maga if taught well. if you take 2 beginners and teach 6 months of long term group 1 sports versus group 2 sports, on average the street style kids will be much more successful.

Do something like the most successful openings, the continuation after the most successful hookup, the most successful arguments, the most successful escalation, the most successful phrases to bring out the most successful ways of having sex etc by learning them just how a robot would lead the boy has much faster success. it is as if you were a kamikaze and you choose to do more kills with your eyes closed. it is clear that on average going downtown and shooting would be more successful than in the mountains.

I think something like this leads someone to have the closing percentages of an average and if this method is broken down into further things like using the more statistical things based on their level of fundamentals etc and the type of girl, for example a archetype of black girl therefore that he likes more "aggressive" guys etc. poses lead to an advanced medium level.

I think everyone does it a little bit unknowingly. For example, the same advice to close quickly can be a very functional heuristic. Anyone who has a minimum of experience knows that it means that you have to pull the perception of the girl as fast as possible for the context and therefore the type can be slower. But if I still told a guy regardless to close the club within 1 2 hours he would certainly do better than the same guy who waited months on the balcony to serenade.

I hope that the concept is passed and in my opinion it would be really cool to do a section in this sense with the best statistical heuristics at all times and with other subsections on various archetypes etc.

 

[DeepShadow]

now that I think about it it is also useful for the advanced ones because it is a horoscope style method. In the sense, not knowing a girl first, you start from large general assumptions so that when you see something attacks, you aim at that point and continue towards the gate that has shown itself open.

 

[Michal]

First and foremost I see the point you're making with this proposal. Having a list of techniques mapped out (might be actual lines based on how you put it) may seem like a good way of skyrocketing learning and effectiveness of it.

Big however here... first of all, if you had a list like that, every clueless guy would resort to learning lines and being sort of a robot. Women are not a mathematical puzzle. We men might want to think we can migrate the problem to that because we are problem solvers. But women are an emotional puzzle. You cannot "solve" her with logic. Techniques have their place like in sex for example. But human interactions are based on emotion.

Second.. the moment something becomes the most successful opener, more and more guys will use it. We have this already now with "hey, how are you", "you are beautiful". Even if it was very clever, something about boots for example, if it has 96% success rate, the moment it would be used too much, girls would just be like "oh, another boots line guy, why can't men be original anymore ugh". And the success rate goes down significantly. And this is not even the biggest problem.

Third.. in reality you have too many factors impacting this. You would need to define the success criteria and what is the end state which deternines the "success" was reached. And with that, there are too many variables. You would need to isolate those too.

In order to have something like this, you need to go a bit higher level, like on Epic level (epic in terms of scrum if you know agile methodology). You seem to want to have it on the story level (lines). The "epic" level would be direct, indirect, physical for openers for example. But again, too many variables so you would need to define some archetypes for people. I think this was sort of an approach of Vin DiCarlo, I am not sure if it was him... the guy who created the Pandora's Box system, where you have 6 types girls. And you need to tailor your approach to her type. So you asked 3 questions to find out her type and then calibrate. I think you are after something similar, where you had guy types (nice guy, jock, nerd, flamboyant, rockstar, billionaire, ...) saying direct opener to a girl type (social butterly, boss bitch, girl next door, ugly swan, gold digger, ... ) and you would get a table that jack to a boss bitch direct opener is 89% success rate whereas nerd to a boss bitch direct has 4,3% success rate. But again, too many variables, you can have personality types (described examples above) but then you need a hotness level too). Because nerd level 10 with a direct opener may have 78% success to a boss bitch level 7. But boss bitch level 10 is still 5% success because he still a nerd.

So it sounds nice but an utopia to achieve and gather the data. I think you would be much happier if you focus on you, get good with girls to satisfy your needs with women. Because it may take you the same amount of time to learn this.

Cheers.

 

[DeepShadow]

First and foremost I see the point you're making with this proposal. Having a list of techniques mapped out (might be actual lines based on how you put it) may seem like a good way of skyrocketing learning and effectiveness of it.

Big however here... first of all, if you had a list like that, every clueless guy would resort to learning lines and being sort of a robot. Women are not a mathematical puzzle. We men might want to think we can migrate the problem to that because we are problem solvers. But women are an emotional puzzle. You cannot "solve" her with logic. Techniques have their place like in sex for example. But human interactions are based on emotion.

Second.. the moment something becomes the most successful opener, more and more guys will use it. We have this already now with "hey, how are you", "you are beautiful". Even if it was very clever, something about boots for example, if it has 96% success rate, the moment it would be used too much, girls would just be like "oh, another boots line guy, why can't men be original anymore ugh". And the success rate goes down significantly. And this is not even the biggest problem.

Third.. in reality you have too many factors impacting this. You would need to define the success criteria and what is the end state which deternines the "success" was reached. And with that, there are too many variables. You would need to isolate those too.

In order to have something like this, you need to go a bit higher level, like on Epic level (epic in terms of scrum if you know agile methodology). You seem to want to have it on the story level (lines). The "epic" level would be direct, indirect, physical for openers for example. But again, too many variables so you would need to define some archetypes for people. I think this was sort of an approach of Vin DiCarlo, I am not sure if it was him... the guy who created the Pandora's Box system, where you have 6 types girls. And you need to tailor your approach to her type. So you asked 3 questions to find out her type and then calibrate. I think you are after something similar, where you had guy types (nice guy, jock, nerd, flamboyant, rockstar, billionaire, ...) saying direct opener to a girl type (social butterly, boss bitch, girl next door, ugly swan, gold digger, ... ) and you would get a table that jack to a boss bitch direct opener is 89% success rate whereas nerd to a boss bitch direct has 4,3% success rate. But again, too many variables, you can have personality types (described examples above) but then you need a hotness level too). Because nerd level 10 with a direct opener may have 78% success to a boss bitch level 7. But boss bitch level 10 is still 5% success because he still a nerd.

So it sounds nice but an utopia to achieve and gather the data. I think you would be much happier if you focus on you, get good with girls to satisfy your needs with women. Because it may take you the same amount of time to learn this.

Cheers.

look it's not even for me I thought it could be a general useful resource. I know it's not optimal. And it is clear that it is not completely all because we are not robots but anyone can join certain threads. The fact that they are emotional puzzles does not mean that they still respond to certain things. it's the same in marketing. Just because you don't know every single person, it starts with large grids and then tightens onto the individual. It may seem dehumanizing but in reality we are more similar than it seems. and I wrote that it is not so mathematical and that other factors will influence but precisely because it is a generic and broad statistical approach it will change little. Because, for example, let's pretend that a big topic is the theme of travel, then in any case everyone will have their experiences and communication skills. Don't see it as applying it to robots but still to thinking people. the whole method would be based to obtain the closure of the girl but if you want then you can also do it for the relationship etc.

the basic concept is that the best heuristics will give the possibility even to those who have never fucked to start doing it faster and for those who do not want to become an expert to stick to this but to those who also want to leave this "rigid" structure. Although in reality while a virgin boy using this structure will also learn and will no longer be so automatic while even the experienced boy can see some things as tools. some sort of automatic routine in some cases.

 

[ulrich]

Yeah, as @Michal mentions, it would be a great idea but it is a little utopic.
There are many challenges that prevent the development of statistical significant models:

+ The high number of variables (height, race, voice pitch, inflection, setting, time of the day, overall attractiveness of target, etc…) require an even higher number of data points to isolate.

+ Complex social dynamics that the researcher may not be capable to identify (attainability, frame, approach invitations, token resistance, status dynamics, etc…)

+ Extremely easy to introduce and overlook bias in any kind of social experiment.

+ Competition makes some recognizable tactics more likely or unlikely to succeed.



In summary, to reach statistically significant conclusions seem unviable.

A heuristic model, on the other hand might be way more useful, especially if it’s coming from someone with a track record.
Still, it needs to take into account the sheer amount of externalities.

The ultimate seduction tool is calibration after all… something that is 5% less likely to work in a given setting might be 200% more likely in another setting.
So yeah, really hard to put in paper.

 

[DeepShadow]

Yeah, as @Michal mentions, it would be a great idea but it is a little utopic.
There are many challenges that prevent the development of statistical significant models:

+ The high number of variables (height, race, voice pitch, inflection, setting, time of the day, overall attractiveness of target, etc…) require an even higher number of data points to isolate.

+ Complex social dynamics that the researcher may not be capable to identify (attainability, frame, approach invitations, token resistance, status dynamics, etc…)

+ Extremely easy to introduce and overlook bias in any kind of social experiment.

+ Competition makes some recognizable tactics more likely or unlikely to succeed.



In summary, to reach statistically significant conclusions seem unviable.

A heuristic model, on the other hand might be way more useful, especially if it’s coming from someone with a track record.
Still, it needs to take into account the sheer amount of externalities.

The ultimate seduction tool is calibration after all… something that is 5% less likely to work in a given setting might be 200% more likely in another setting.
So yeah, really hard to put in paper.

I agree that it would be a lot of data from many seducers. But I also think it's not that hard either. I am using statistics in the broad sense and therefore comparable to heuristics. After all, uristics are shortcuts of thought that often hit the target. We could say that a hooded man in a dark alley in the bronx is to be avoided and this is a heuristic that is not infallible and has probabilities and therefore statistics. For that I gave the example of closing games quickly too. I think seduction often gets too complicated. Guys often fuck a huge number of things wrong. Just think that david buss has identified 237 reasons why women have sex, unlike us men who do not reach 10. Clearly the most frequent are few. it is certainly not an ideal method as I said and which is not intended to be applied as a robot but in any case by a person who uses his brain and perceives feedback. But I find a set of more statistically functioning heuristics to be useful. I think we're all saying the same thing here by all seeing the problem but seeing it from different points.
indeed we could see it like this, the mere fact of making a list of things not to do such as an opening classified as a direct neo and an opening that does not fall into that type even if already heard or who knows how exclusive is statistically increasing the probability of closing. Same as the tiare heuristic within 2 hours. Same as kissing her within 10-15 minutes inside the house etc. Will it always be the right choice? absolutely not. But over large numbers it will bring more closures to a beginner who doesn't process everything

 

[ulrich]

@Michal, perhaps the word “statistics” derails the discussion away from internet intended objective, given its meaning of certainty and precision.

 

[DeepShadow]

@Michal, perhaps the word “statistics” derails the discussion away from internet intended objective, given its meaning of certainty and precision.

in reality it has different meanings, it can be the descriptive one which limits itself to describing the phenomena through indices and graphs. or inferential statistic, that which, also making use of probabilistic methods, allows to draw general conclusions starting from the examination of a sample. When they do covid stats it doesn't mean they are right. They are models of data representations. But without entering into debates about it then we intend that as a heuristic method with the highest possible probabilistic choices.

 

[TomInHo]

This would not work well for a few reasons...

Because if an opener or style of game works well for Seducer A it doesn't mean it will work equally as well for Seducer B

For example.... If Seducer A is tall, dark, handsome, excellent style, wealthy, and jacked... doing a cocky & funny style might not yield great results because it will make most girls see him as an arrogant prick and out of their league. He may still gain success, but he may need to mostly target narcissistic, status hungry & cluster B women if he desires consistency with that style

But if Seducer B is average across the board, his cocky & funny delivery can make him seem charming to more girls than most. Hence he can cast a wider net without having to alter his style of seduction

Because, as you gain more experience in seduction you'll notice the interplay between your....

• Fundamentals
• Seduction Style
• Target Audience

You will always get better results if you tailor your game around your current fundamentals and the types of girls you are targeting.

This is one of the reasons why seasoned seducers tend to gravitate towards a certain type of girl. It's just more efficient to start with the end in mind and build yourself into the guy that your "Ideal Girl" would fall head over heels for.

Because if you try to please everyone, you please no one.

And ironically, the more niched you become, the more attractive you become to girls outside that niche... go figure

TLDR: Social dynamics are too complex to narrow down into reliable statistical models

 

[DeepShadow]

This would not work well for a few reasons...

Because if an opener or style of game works well for Seducer A it doesn't mean it will work equally as well for Seducer B

For example.... If Seducer A is tall, dark, handsome, excellent style, wealthy, and jacked... doing a cocky & funny style might not yield great results because it will make most girls see him as an arrogant prick and out of their league. He may still gain success, but he may need to mostly target narcissistic, status hungry & cluster B women if he desires consistency with that style

But if Seducer B is average across the board, his cocky & funny delivery can make him seem charming to more girls than most. Hence he can cast a wider net without having to alter his style of seduction

Because, as you gain more experience in seduction you'll notice the interplay between your....

• Fundamentals
• Seduction Style
• Target Audience

You will always get better results if you tailor your game around your current fundamentals and the types of girls you are targeting.

This is one of the reasons why seasoned seducers tend to gravitate towards a certain type of girl. It's just more efficient to start with the end in mind and build yourself into the guy that your "Ideal Girl" would fall head over heels for.

Because if you try to please everyone, you please no one.

And ironically, the more niched you become, the more attractive you become to girls outside that niche... go figure

TLDR: Social dynamics are too complex to narrow down into reliable statistical models

for this I am not talking about tightening the shot with styles of play or I have also specified in case you want to do it you should create various heuristics for different archetypes of players and for different types of women. But statistically functional heuristics that work even if there are no gauges. The fast closing of chase is one of those things that falls into that