Does Daygame make you ‘good with girls’? I was posited recently that Daygame will only make you good at Daygame. I’m inferring that the alternative means that combining Daygame with other types of Game: Night, Bar, Online, etc. or perhaps expanding on the narrow definition of Daygame as being 99% street stops to cover shops, cafes, restaurants, clerk girls, bar staff, etc, will make you good with girls.
At the heart of this question is: is Game superadditive? Superadditive meaning a (mathematical) set where the sum is greater than the parts; 2 + 2 > 4. If Game is superadditive then learning Nightgame and Daygame, together, would make you more than twice as ‘good with girls’ than learning one of those systems.
I would actually posit that learning different types of Game is subadditive; 2 + 2 < 4. There are common themes that run through any type of Game: opening, closing, escalating, isolating, etc, and learning how to perform one of these tasks in one form of Game carries over to another form quite well. It would mean one learns the most from the first type of Game they are drawn to. In fact the amount one learns from learning a new type of Game decreases exponentially as only the different forms of the same tasks are learned.
But the phrase ‘Daygame only makes you good at Daygame’ has a ring to it, doesn’t it. It makes sense, in a way, and there are many guys out there who perform admirably in Daygame but won’t approach in different environments. I think this statement holds true only if you see the different forms of Game as being fundamentally different.
Take opening: the most fearful act in the eyes of most men. Daygamers aren’t scared to open during the day, but put a beer in their hand and they’re terrified! But what is an opener at the most basic level: the beginning of an interaction; the thing that takes two human beings from not talking to talking. It has one purpose: to initiate the interaction, and once that’s fulfilled then it’s job is done. Anything beyond that is quite a luxury.
It’s another part of the same old story: simplify and improve things by removing the unnecessary items. When moving from beginner to intermediate you have to zoom in as if you had bacteria under a microscope. When moving from intermediate to advanced you zoom back out again. In my opinion, the purpose of Game is to mimic a natural, but naturals don’t break their Game down into infinitesimal chunks comprised of an endless toolbox of techniques. They follow a few good rules of thumb – heuristics – and combine it with high SMV and an expectation of success.
So does Daygame make you only good at Daygame? Yes, but only if you see each form of Game as a process to be followed; a list of techniques to be performed one after another. If you internalise those techniques and make them part of who you are – you make them things that you do naturally – then you’ll be ‘good with girls.’
N.B. I’m not advocating that everyone approach all the time and in every situation possible. In fact, the benefit of following only one type of Game means you’re better able to switch off. There’s less pressure that way and lord knows we put ourselves under so much already.
There’s also no moral order to following one type of Game or multiple types. If a guy gets into Game to get laid, and one type of Game satisfies that, then who are you, I, or anyone to say he needs to do more?
One thought on “Does Daygame Make You Good With Girls?”
If a guy gets into Game to get laid, and one type of Game satisfies that, then who are you, I, or anyone to say he needs to do more?
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻 Pretty good point right here