Yesterday I reached 2000 sets. I’ve been Daygaming since October 2016. Here they are:
|
Approaches |
Phone Numbers |
Dates |
Lays |
|
2000 |
549 |
98 |
27 |
|
Approach to Number Close: |
3.64 |
||
|
Approach to Date: |
20 |
||
|
Approach to Lay: |
74 |
What I find interesting about “all time stats” is that they don’t contain much information because they’re too static. They don’t show how my ratios have improved over time, and they don’t describe my current ratios because they contain all the static from the early sets.
What I did find interesting was the movement from the first thousand sets to the second thousand. I experienced a kind of mental shift once the first thousand were done, as if my beginner days were over. I was no longer an apprentice, and didn’t have to open girls unless I actually wanted to. I gave myself permission to let sets go past, and not to approach the super-fast girls talking on the phones.
The interesting effect that that has had is a decrease in momentum. In the first thousand, I was consistently hitting a flow state and experiencing beginner’s euphoria. The second thousand seemed a lot more like a slog. It started last year just as it was getting hot and humid as well, so I think I mentally attached the climate to the sets. I think what will characterise the third thousand is a kind of freedom from outcome: the same number of sets (obviously), but less numbers and less dates. I see this coming from the natural progression of my journey: increasing polarisation leading to fewer Maybe girls. Then the few girls who actually progress from the street are much more likely to turn into lays.
Apart from that I’m eager to reduce the A:L ratio down to 50 (right now it’s around 60) and to get closer to 50 Daygame lays.
Yours unfaithfully,
Thomas Crown
Thomas Crown PUA 
2k Sets in 1.5 year is solid work m8 good job.
> I was no longer an apprentice, and didn’t have to open girls unless I actually wanted to.
Do you think it is good practice for a beginner to open everything ? For example a normal guy opening a tattooed hipster. I had tried opening anything in the past and in the end I came to realize that I myself was filling shit when opening a girl that looked nice but at the same time was not that nice (if you know what I mean).
Do you now open based on her vibe ? When did you get this intuition developer ? I say this cause some girls look attractive but I get the feeling that I should not open her (and I don’t)
Cheers
LikeLike
Well, not literally anything, but anything he’s attracted to. If she makes you wonder whether you should approach, then there’s something you like about her. There’s a lot of discovery to do for a beginner. They need to find their niche and it might surprise them.
Now, I’m on the same page as you: I open if I’m attracted and I think she will like me (with a sprinkling of cold opens for particularly hot girls). I’d say this intuition developed at the start of this year when I consciously went out and told myself I’d only approach what I thought was a good bet.
LikeLike
Thomas…
Q: Can you define how you use “approach” in these stats?
I was surprised to learn last year that lots of guys don’t count an “interaction” as an “approach” unless she replies. They are effectively filtering out “blowouts” from their count. Totally fine with me, but we don’t all have the same counting system.
For the record: I think I am 5000+ approaches. I count every time I roll up on a girl as an approach (If I made an effort, it counts). And my approach to lay… about 1 in 150. I’ve had months here/there where I am closer to 1:75, but overtime… 1:150.
LikeLike
Up until the start of this year I only counted it as an approach if she “gave me a shot”, so no insta-blowouts were included. I changed that at the start of this year and am now including anything where I at least try and stop her.
It’s true, it makes stats comparisons like comparing apples and oranges. It’s even going on in my stats (1600 Vs 400 are counted differently). Then again, you should only really care about your own stats and they have greater accuracy now because of including the insta-blowouts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
>> greater accuracy now because of including the insta-blowouts.
Cool, deal.
You’re correct… we need only be concerned with our own stats. But for guys like you/me that make our numbers public, I think we do the NEW GUYS a great service when we show the most “comprehensive” stats (to include blowouts and rejections).
I don’t sell anything, which means I don’t have to protect my “brand,” so I show extra emphasis on blowouts/rejections/failures because I know new guys are intimidated by the success of the veterans… all the “down side” is normal… I’m not sure this is obvious when we post lay report after lay report. I want the new guys to see it… it’s good for them. With lays… comes rejection.
I get laid a lot, but I also fail a lot. This is how it goes.
I can’t remember the exact numbers, but two years ago in Japan I approached >350 girls, and got blown out more than 150 times. That’s insta-blowouts… there was heavy attrition beyond those as well. This… is how it goes.
Cheers to you, man. May the girls be friendly. May we all be entertained.
LikeLike
OMG now the approach to number ratio makes far more sense! Here I am scratching my head thinking are these PUA’s number closing ugly middle aged women when I hear stats of 1 in 3 in London IN LONDON. when I average (currently 1 in 6) in London. Thank you daysofgame for the context!
LikeLike
My average this year has been one in four…
LikeLike
Yeah stats are meaningless without context as you well know. I avoid force closing and I go super direct from the off so that will skew my results. I’ve never met you but by reading your blog you seem like a friendly guy on the streets you may be different.
LikeLike