Numbers game?

[playmaker001]

I was on another thread, and whether dating is a "numbers game" came up. I just want an idea of what the guys here think about this. Is dating a numbers game or not? Comment away!

[Alexander]

In my understanding, yes. That's all I'm gonna' say. Yes it is.

[Chaos]

I don't think is a numbers game in the pure sense of the term, that is... Lottery is a numbers game, the expected value (in the mathematical sense) is always negative. The relation between your probabilities and the number of bets you do is also a direct relation, the more bets you do, the higher your probabilities.

For dating that's not true. A guy can approach 100 women and don't get a single date while some other guy may approach 10 women and get 4 dates.

With that said numbers play an important factor in the way they give you experience and you collect feedback. In addition they also improve your odds since you have more probabilities to find a girl who's interested in you...

Basically:

Improving your lifestyle and general "game": More women will be interested in you.
Improving your raw numbers: You'll meet more women.

The thing is I perceive the fist variable to be much more significant than the second one... if you attract 1% of the women you meet then you need 100 approaches to get a date which is pretty time consuming... when I want the next date I need another 100 approaches. If instead you attract 10% of the girls you need only to approach to 10 women... and when you want to meet another girl you just have to approach another ten.

[Bulgakov]

no mention of quality?

if i approach average girls it's easier to get their number. they're less likely to have a boyfriend/exposure to constant male attention.

you approach the top 5-10% of girls, you have more competition.

[baller08]

Chaos absolutely gets it. Terrific explanation.

For the record I voted "Yes" because I don't want to detract from the majority of the readers on this forum. In the beginning and even a few years after you "get good with women", it is a numbers game. I don't want the guys here who are still struggling to think they can get around this fact.

What most men don't get to is a place where they start to make choices like a really beautiful woman instead of a desperate guy or a guy who still has to work pretty hard for sex.

Chaos' last paragraph is a perfect breakdown of that. To look at it from a woman's point of view: Let's say a woman is really obese, she has very little choices in men. Then she loses 40 lbs, but she is still considered somewhat overweight. But with enough make up, revealing clothes, and promiscuous behavior she starts to get more attention from men but still she has to work pretty hard and it's never the type of men that she really is all around happy with and who will respect her.

Now some women really go all the way and actually become extremely beautiful. Assuming their personality is also good, their attraction level becomes universal and having choices in men no longer become work. Now they can focus on actually getting the best type of men.

This is very similar with many men. They get better with women and start getting sex, but that's where their improvement stops and they still have to work pretty hard, gets frustrated a lot, and never get the well balanced woman.

Most nice guys start off "obese" and then lose some "weight" but they never get to the point where their attraction level becomes universal and getting sex with beautiful, sexy, and well rounded women no longer becomes work.

This is what PostMasculine is trying to do differently - to help men get to a place that most men can't even see. It IS a numbers game, but after awhile it really isn't.

---

Quote: if i approach average girls it's easier to get their number. they're less likely to have a boyfriend/exposure to constant male attention.

you approach the top 5-10% of girls, you have more competition.

Bulgakov - actually it's quite the opposite. You know why? Because the high majority of men think like you. So you'll get a LOT more competition with the average and pretty girls because most men are too intimidated to ever talk to or date the top 5-10% of beautiful and sexy women.

When/if you've had relationships (actually dated) women who are extremely beautiful and who use their sexuality as part of their job (ie: dancers, cheerleaders, models), you'll quickly realize that what you think their world is like is mostly misconception.

Most men look at women of that caliber and believe all sorts of incorrect things....only about a 1/4 of what you think about their life and their attitude is correct. While they have superficial things easier (ie: getting into clubs, having older men try to win them over with money, etc), the rest of their life is no different than that of an average pretty girl. They have equally as many insecurities and they fret over the same exact things.

The misconception is based on the fact that most men confuse enormous attention with tons of competition. Yes, women of that caliber gets tons of attention....but to them its nothing. The competition is only in a man's mind. This is why the top 5-10% women today don't have it any easier in finding a man they can have a meaningful relationship with because so many men are so intimidated by them they don't feel any attraction most of the time.

This is also why when you see a guy with a beautiful women and think, "Oh he's out of her league", you don't understand that he actually isn't. He is actually very much in her league because he is able to play his masculine role in the face of her extreme beauty and make her feel emotions other men cannot.

[Bulgakov]

(05-11-2012 05:43 PM)baller08 Wrote:  Chaos absolutely gets it. Terrific explanation.

For the record I voted "Yes" because I don't want to detract from the majority of the readers on this forum. In the beginning and even a few years after you "get good with women", it is a numbers game. I don't want the guys here who are still struggling to think they can get around this fact.

What most men don't get to is a place where they start to make choices like a really beautiful woman instead of a desperate guy or a guy who still has to work pretty hard for sex.

Chaos' last paragraph is a perfect breakdown of that. To look at it from a woman's point of view: Let's say a woman is really obese, she has very little choices in men. Then she loses 40 lbs, but she is still considered somewhat overweight. But with enough make up, revealing clothes, and promiscuous behavior she starts to get more attention from men but still she has to work pretty hard and it's never the type of men that she really is all around happy with and who will respect her.

Now some women really go all the way and actually become extremely beautiful. Assuming their personality is also good, their attraction level becomes universal and having choices in men no longer become work. Now they can focus on actually getting the best type of men.

This is very similar with many men. They get better with women and start getting sex, but that's where their improvement stops and they still have to work pretty hard, gets frustrated a lot, and never get the well balanced woman.

Most nice guys start off "obese" and then lose some "weight" but they never get to the point where their attraction level becomes universal and getting sex with beautiful, sexy, and well rounded women no longer becomes work.

This is what PostMasculine is trying to do differently - to help men get to a place that most men can't even see. It IS a numbers game, but after awhile it really isn't.

---

Quote: if i approach average girls it's easier to get their number. they're less likely to have a boyfriend/exposure to constant male attention.

you approach the top 5-10% of girls, you have more competition.

Bulgakov - actually it's quite the opposite. You know why? Because the high majority of men think like you. So you'll get a LOT more competition with the average and pretty girls because most men are too intimidated to ever talk to or date the top 5-10% of beautiful and sexy women.

When/if you've had relationships (actually dated) women who are extremely beautiful and who use their sexuality as part of their job (ie: dancers, cheerleaders, models), you'll quickly realize that what you think their world is like is mostly misconception.

Most men look at women of that caliber and believe all sorts of incorrect things....only about a 1/4 of what you think about their life and their attitude is correct. While they have superficial things easier (ie: getting into clubs, having older men try to win them over with money, etc), the rest of their life is no different than that of an average pretty girl. They have equally as many insecurities and they fret over the same exact things.

The misconception is based on the fact that most men confuse enormous attention with tons of competition. Yes, women of that caliber gets tons of attention....but to them its nothing. The competition is only in a man's mind. This is why the top 5-10% women today don't have it any easier in finding a man they can have a meaningful relationship with because so many men are so intimidated by them they don't feel any attraction most of the time.

This is also why when you see a guy with a beautiful women and think, "Oh he's out of her league", you don't understand that he actually isn't. He is actually very much in her league because he is able to play his masculine role in the face of her extreme beauty and make her feel emotions other men cannot.

This is silly. The girls I rate highest on my Facebook are mostly in relationships. More so than the average girls. They also have better quality guys. Explain that.

That 1/4 knowledge assertion is ridiculous. How do you know what I think? Provided you knew my thoughts, how can you assess that 25% is correct?

[Mark]

The numbers aspect of dating is unavoidable simply because it's unreasonable to think that everyone you meet will like you. The desire to have everyone like you and for every woman to want to sleep with you comes from a place of insecurity.

As for the argument over whether the highest "quality" women have more competition or are less available or not, my answer: Who the fuck cares? Grow a pair and talk to her. End of story.

[Chaos]

No, I don't buy the whole numbers thing. Is like my friends saying I get more chicks because I approach more... And it's not that simple, sure I approach more (not that much more since approaching is not my strongest) but honestly I don't think they will get much more if they started approaching much more.

[Mark]

Yes, you may get 1 out of 10 and your friends may get 1 out of 100. Either way, it's a numbers game for both of you. Sure, we can influence the probabilities, but that's the point: we're always playing the probabilities.

The only way it's not a numbers game is if someone is able to sleep/date 100% of the women they meet. That's impossible. So yes, it's a numbers game.

[Leo]

This "should" be COMMON SENSE. Why we need a thread asking this? I hope we are not gonna over-analyze this.

[playmaker001]

@Leo: Yeah, I thought the same thing but there were some members on here that had opposing opinions. So, I just wanted a consensus really.

[Tim]

Well someone voted no, so I'd love to hear from them

But seriously, they could have an interesting perspective.

[playmaker001]

it was Chaos who voted no, he explained himself in the previous comments.

[Chaos]

I think we disagree on what "numbers game" means:

Quote:a situation in which decisions are based on points or numbers, not on other qualities that may be more important

Source: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dicti...mbers-game

Quote:Yes, you may get 1 out of 10 and your friends may get 1 out of 100. Either way, it's a numbers game for both of you. Sure, we can influence the probabilities, but that's the point: we're always playing the probabilities.

Poker is also "playing the probabilities" and is definitively not a numbers game. Or more to the point I'm identifying numbers as "approaches", for me it's not a numbers game because saying is a number's game means the best option to "win" the game is to bet on the number of approaches, and I don't think that's precisely the wisest of the ideas... if you can only do one bet, the best expected return value would be elsewhere. Of course if you can improve both that's even better.

Maybe I'm understanding wrong what "numbers game" means, because what I actually expected is for the majority of the people of this forum to actually think the other way around.

[Mark]

Yeah Chaos, you are using a different definition of "numbers game" than what is usually referred to. I think there may be some lost in translation because poker absolutely is a numbers game.

[SeXyBaCk]

Looking at the whole of society it's a numbers game because it involves two populations (men and women) both driven to hook up, at least within certain age groups. There's a likely hood every day you will bump into someone you are compatible with/who will like you (assuming you actually are dating). The more you date, the more likely you are to find romantic satisfaction.

On a personal level I don't feel I have to be playing this number game. I know I can get any woman to like me and eventually love me if I pursue and persist. What it takes is something about her to get me interested. I suppose that in itself might be another statistic. I guess what I'm trying to say is for you lads it might be a numbers game, I on the other hand, am walking on water.

And I won't be havin' any backtalk on this.

[The Notorious PhD]

Let me complicate this further by suggesting alternative terminology. Rather than "numbers game", let's ask whether dating is "deterministic" or "stochastic".

What do I mean by this?

Deterministic processes always produce the same output, for a given input. An example is weighing something. You could weigh the same object a hundred times, and you'll always get the same number. Change the object, and you'll change the weight.

Stochastic processes produce random output, for a given input, but these outputs have stable properties on average. An example is tossing a coin. You might get either head or tails for a given toss. However, say you toss the coin a 100 times, then the head/tails split will be roughly half and half.

For stochastic processes, though you can't guarantee an individual instance of the process, you can certainly make guarantees about the average. Take coin tossing again. Some magicians can throw the coin in such a way that it'll come up heads, say, nine out of ten times. This was actually demonstrated in a cool experiment by the Stanford math department.

So is pick-up deterministic or stochastic?

It would be deterministic if, say, you had one opener and you used it on ten girls and they ALL responded the same exact way.

It would be stochastic if there was variation in the response of the girls. You still don't know what a given girl will do, but you can say something about what girls will do on average.

So if your opener is, say, Will you fuck me? Maybe 1 out of 500 women will say yes. Say you dressed better, then maybe 5 out of 500 will say yes. Then say you were George Clooney, so maybe 50 out of 500 will say yes. And so on. The thing to remember is you don't know which 50 will say yes.

So if you want to sleep with a girl but aren't Clooney and dress like shit, you have to ask all 500 women until one says yes.

Because you can't know which girl will say yes.

Because it's a stochastic process. In other words, a numbers game.

[Tim]

Chaos, you can improve your numbers by focusing on certain cards in poker or by approaching certain women. In that sense it's 'not' a numbers game. At least not purely. But you can't wait for the perfect hand every time, where you are guaranteed to win, just as you can't wait for the perfect women and situation, where you are guaranteed to do everything.

It is a numbers game in that you will just have to go through being dealt a lot of good hands, or meeting incompatible women, before you find one that you can play with (lol). The better you are at bluffing or the more attractive you are, the less you need a good hand to win, or the perfect situation for everything to work out.

I don't think people are disagreeing here, so hopefully that makes things clearer and not more confusing lol.

---

Notorious actually said it better than me with the Clooney example.

[Chaos]

I guess is a matter of translation then. I was thinking more in something like "Lottery" vs "Poker".

With lottery the more you play the greater your odds of winning, it's a direct relation. With poker that's not true, there's not direct correlation, there's some ability involved an most poker players will tell you if a guy plays 1000 times he will lose a 1000 times... It's difficult to make a clear example because poker are not women but that was the meaning I was referring to. I interpreted "numbers game" as the number of approaches being the only thing that really counts...

[SeXyBaCk]

that would be a game of chance, lottery...dice etc. But yeah, the lottery in itself can be seen as a numbers game because if you were to fill out a million tickets your chance of winning might be 1:30 or something, depending on the lottery.

[baller08]

Technically everything in life comes down to a "numbers" game". If I drive enough times, I will get a speeding ticket. If I go to the office enough times, I will forget my laptop at home. But I don't consider my good driving a record or my ability to bring my laptop to work daily a numbers game...it just IS.

Playmaker started this thread because in a previous discussion I told him that eventually this should no longer be about a numbers game. As I explained, after awhile, a man's life becomes about choices that are constantly presented to him simply because he is a universally attractive man.

Even though not every single woman in the world wants to have sex with George Clooney, I'm pretty certain he does not feel that his dating life is a numbers game.

In a discussion last month, a poster named Mace kept asking Mark what his lay to approach ratio was. Mark couldn't answer him because he no longer kept count. It didn't matter to him because his success with women isn't based on how many approaches he made anymore.

Here's another simplier way to look at it: If you were just a high school graduate and you were looking for a job, people will tell you to send out hundreds of resumes and to take what you can get. When you're an executive looking for a Director, VP, or C-level position, you don't send out hundreds of resumes anymore. You may send out a few resumes but most interviews will be through your relationships and reputations you've made throughout your career. If you're a man who has a reputation of making positive impacts on corporations, a lot of opportunities will come to you.

To a high school graduate, job seeking is a numbers game in its purest form. To the experienced and successful executive, while technically it still is a numbers game, he doesn't look at it that way anymore. He is in a position to make choices.

I stand by what I said previously - your ultimate goal in this "game" is to make choices like a beautiful woman instead of a desperate guy (or a guy who still has to work fairly hard for sex). Eventually it shouldn't feel like a numbers game anymore.....even if we all can't walk on water like Sexyback.

---

Quote:This is silly. The girls I rate highest on my Facebook are mostly in relationships. More so than the average girls. They also have better quality guys. Explain that.

That 1/4 knowledge assertion is ridiculous. How do you know what I think? Provided you knew my thoughts, how can you assess that 25% is correct?

Bulgakov - I know how you're thinking because you posted your thoughts. And your thoughts about these caliber of women are the same misconceptions that the majority of men I've worked with have.

I posted my observations on the subject based on having relationships with these type of women and by spending a lot of time with their friends who are similar. I've spent countless hours with women of this nature in order to help them understand why they are so frustrated. Men who I know who date these type of women also have observed the same things.

Women that you rate highest on your Facebook does not count as "experience".

Now, if you're interested in discussing why you aren't able to date these women and why you feel you're in high competition for them, then I'll be happy to have a conversation with you. However, if you're more interested in defending your limited beliefs then you're on your own.

[Bulgakov]

I'm not sure why I wrote that. I think it stems from my experience at a residential college where almost all the attractive girls had boyfriends. However, most girls don't go to residential colleges so I should keep that in mind.

I've been with a few hot girls. I never feel unworthy but I do feel lucky. I feel lucky because I get the sense (with most of them) that my timing was good and that was really the most important thing. A few weeks/months earlier and I would not have stood a chance.

[baller08]

That's understandable, Bulgakov. The unfortunate thing is, your thought process is robbing both you and the woman of a really great potential relationship together.

As I mentioned above, a lot of women of this caliber are so frustrated and disappointed in their dating life because they'll meet a great guy (ie: you) and have high hopes only to have it go south and lose attraction for him because he ends up thinking like you.

There is no need to have these negative thoughts because they are irrelevent to the relationship. You're projecting all sorts of things about her life, making you feel that you're the lucky one, and ruining something that doesn't have to be ruined. You're disappointed, she's disappointed. All unnecessary.

She wants a strong man to guide and lead the relationship, not someone who feels lucky to be with her just because she's beautiful. This is the most common complaint BY FAR I hear from beautiful women. Of course they don't crystalize it in the way I just said it, but they express the disappointment from the fallout of that attitude.

Try to get out of your pre-conceive notions and behave around a hot girl the same way you would an average one and you'll find that your relationships will improve quite a bit. In other words, don't punish a woman for being beautiful and rob her of being with a strong man by being a pansy.

[Swimmer]

(05-14-2012 06:20 PM)baller08 Wrote:  Here's another simplier way to look at it: If you were just a high school graduate and you were looking for a job, people will tell you to send out hundreds of resumes and to take what you can get. When you're an executive looking for a Director, VP, or C-level position, you don't send out hundreds of resumes anymore. You may send out a few resumes but most interviews will be through your relationships and reputations you've made throughout your career. If you're a man who has a reputation of making positive impacts on corporations, a lot of opportunities will come to you.

To a high school graduate, job seeking is a numbers game in its purest form. To the experienced and successful executive, while technically it still is a numbers game, he doesn't look at it that way anymore. He is in a position to make choices.

I stand by what I said previously - your ultimate goal in this "game" is to make choices like a beautiful woman instead of a desperate guy (or a guy who still has to work fairly hard for sex). Eventually it shouldn't feel like a numbers game anymore.....even if we all can't walk on water like Sexyback.

Baller, you really nailed it!

[SeXyBaCk]

(05-14-2012 06:20 PM)baller08 Wrote:  Eventually it shouldn't feel like a numbers game anymore.....even if we all can't walk on water like Sexyback.

Tell me where you live and I'll tell you how to get to your local ice rink.

On topic though: Very well illustrated with the job seeking comparison. It's basically what a lot of us are aspiring too, making it less of a numbers game and more of a buyers market.