A couple of months ago I was experiencing severe oxytocin disappointment from the loss of a regular, which would be compounded by any near miss, which were mounting up. My number collecting, leading, and logistics were all strong so I was able to get a lot of girls back to mine but wasn’t closing my desired proportion of them. It was at that point that I decided to follow a different default dating structure, rather than an “as fast as possible” model.
Why have a default dating structure? I’ve said before that in order to gain calibration, counterintuitively, you have to have no calibration whatsoever. In essence: you can only know the territory by walking from one fence to the other. I’d gone through six months of extremely fast pulling, where my default structure was one venue, one drink, and now I’m doing something which is (relatively) slow.
My medium term aim, right now, is to improve the efficiency of my Daygame, which I’ve quantified as an approach to lay ratio of 50:1. I’m also tired of the ups and downs inherent in a lot of first dates, and would rather invest more in fewer leads to get a better date to lay ratio. I want to reduce the amount of near misses I have and the amount of ASD I face. Overall, this will reduce my opportunity to experience oxytocin disappointment.
But won’t you just feel a lot of disappointment in your occasional failures compared to lots of little episodes of disappointment, meaning that it makes no difference to total happiness? Not according to behavioural finance. Test subjects in one study perceived themselves to have experienced less pain overall when the initial pain was followed up by another, smaller, pain. I predict that I’ll perceive the pain of a missed opportunity when she goes off the radar as less than if she merely storms out of my flat.
Getting back to calibration, once you have that in place, you can make on the spot decisions because you’ve seen all of the reactions before and have a better internal on/off sensitivity. It also means that you can adjust your dating structure to match the girl. These are the questions I would ask myself before putting together a dating structure for a girl:
What is your aim on this date? You have to walk into each date with a specific goal in mind, and it might not always be sex. Examples include sex, bouncebacks, kiss/attempted kiss, to kill time (bridge date), etc.
How many dates are you planning for? The number you plan on going on will affect your aim for the date, and how she perceives you. If you’re looking for something longer lasting that a one night stand, then you might want to expand on the one date model to two dates.
How many venues are you going to use on each date? Which ones will involve alcohol? What kind of venues will they be?
What’s your plan for escalation? Will you escalate in each venue? Will you use verbal, physical, or a mixture for which venues? When do you plan on playing the questions game?
At the moment, I’m using the same dating structure for each girl, except in very special circumstances such as for this lay report. This is my setup:
- Aim: D2 – kiss, D3 – sex
- No. of Dates: 2
- Venues: D2 – 2, D3 – 1 or 2 (the second venue might be my living room where I do the questions game)
- Escalation: D2 – 1 (verbal), 2 (physical including kiss); D3 – 1 (light physical and reestablish kiss), 2 (questions game)
In addition to the reasons I gave earlier, I want to build a new harem after Mk. 2 fell apart. This will be Mk. 3 aka the Third Harem aka The Thousand Year Harem. During my two week holiday in November I’ll be writing extensively and I’ll put together a piece on what I believe to be optimal harem structure and how to create it entitled “Harem Manager 2017”.
To conclude, what are the factors which should affect your decision making when it comes to dating structure? I’ve identified five factors which I take into account:
- Nationality: foreigners, whether transient or immigrant, have self-selected as “adventurous” and can therefore be moved along quicker. Take with a pinch of salt if she moved to the UK when she was very young. The point here is that her identity is built around some level of risk taking.
- Transience: scarcity increases value, so if you’ll be forced apart at some point soon, move faster. The sooner the impending split, the quicker you move.
- Street kino and proximity: if she didn’t back off when you closed the distance and didn’t pull away from any kino, go faster. You can lie about eagerness to meet up for a drink, but you you can’t control your body’s reactions to physical touch.
- Age: go faster if she’s younger than 21 or older than you (I’ve never been able to get a girl who was even slightly older than me out on a second date – even if the gap was only a month).
- Her apparent horniness: if you opened off of an IOI or believe her to be ovulating, go faster.
Notice that I left all verbal cues off of that list, as well as a bunch of other smaller indicators and her levels of investment. All of those can, to some extent, be faked, whereas the above are based on objective fact or instinctive reactions.
As of writing this piece, I’ve just come up with a rule of thumb for how many dates and venues to use. Given that the two date, two venue plan is optimal for efficiency (it might not be, this is just an experiment, mind) you adjust from there given her situation. For each of the above factors you tick off, reduce the total number of venues by one. The exception being in extreme cases of transience or if she is older than you, in that case you have to do everything in one date. After doing a quick tally of my Daygame lays compared to the prediction offered, it was correct two thirds of the time. Interestingly, five of the six incorrect predictions came within the first seven lays; I’ll continue to track these stats.