What should have I had done?

[jack pole]

Time: 11pm approx.
Location: Bar.
Description: Place is almost empty except for a few people. At the bar
is a good looking blonde. She has her mobile and keys on the bar and
is talking to one of the staff. She looks like she could be calling
somebody.
Immediate thoughts: She's been waiting for someone and they haven't
turned up so she's pretty annoyed. She has her mobile phone because
she's trying to call someone to drive her home.
My reaction: Didn't approach as I thought she was annoyed. Also her
talking to the bar staff put me off as I didn't want to approach with
the bar staff watching.
Possible approach: Walk up and say "Did you get stood up too?"

[BettorO...@aol.com]

Your instincts were correct as both signs were negative.

However, a simple approach that works is "Would you like some
company?" or thereabouts.

Your situational opener is a bit negative.

Ray Gordon
Bettor Off Single: Why Commitment Is A Bad Gamble For Men
http://www.toosmarttofail.com/bos.pdf
(FREE!)

[Sir Northon South]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 06:20:37 -0700 (PDT), "BettorO...@aol.com"
<BettorO...@aol.com> wrote:




www.rayfaq.com

[Gabriel DellaGuerre]

On May 15, 7:11 pm, Sir Northon South <Here, There, and
Everywhere.bop> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 06:20:37 -0700 (PDT), "BettorOffSin...@aol.com"
>
> <BettorOffSin...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> www.rayfaq.com

How does that post help the discussion?

If she was talking to the staff, she may work there. Maybe she just
finished her shift, etc.

As for the opener - Yes, something neutral like "Hi" would have
worked. If she wants to talk, she'll be receptive, if not, she'll just
be polite and go back to whatever she was doing.

No need to lie. If you actually got stood up, cool. If not, I would
just use something else.

In any case, in a bar setting, you're there to chill after a long day,
wind down, be sociable, have a beer or whatever, not to pick chicks
up. You don't want to force a pick up.

[jack pole]

Thanks for the replies.

Yes, I think my instincts were correct. And the thing is I knew pretty
much instantly she was a no go.

Just last night I was in a club and I was making eye-contact with this
girl who was responding favourably. But I didn't approach because I
was telling myself that I was there just to practice eye-contact (yes,
I was making excuses).

[jabe...@googlemail.com]

Hmm, have you tried getting pua training? Sometimes it can help to
have a "buddy" there to train you, particularly if you are unsure or
feeling underconfident. Sounds like you are a nice guy with value, but
on this occasion you were a bit caught up in your own thoughts when a
concrete action you could of accepted as being useful might have been
the better think, but I think sometimes we have a lot of internal
quesstions that we cannot answer for ourselves, I know that if I had a
"driving instructor" (of pickup) I could trust telling me what to do I
could do it and be happy. I think for most guys what is missing is not
the somewhere, somehow desire to reach out to women, but the fear of
taking responsibility for the interaction. We get told we're so smart
and so important, and we start analysing ourselves, and then, when you
start analysing, you miss your chance. I think the point is that most
girls start by believing what you already secretly know about
yourself, but rather than do things your way, you have to do them
theirs, because men and women are different. A lot of men want to
prove how "deep" they are, because they figure if they are "deeper"
than other guys than they have more right to procreate. But women are
looking for social intelligence, which is something other than being
deep. But if you can find a guy whom you can accept as being as "deep"
as yourself, and therefore as having faced the same questions, than
perhaps you can also accept his social interaction models as well.
Personally, I think there are a number of "deep" puas out there. But
they do not want to come over to women as "deep", because women are
not hard-wired to equate "deep" and introspective with "got to shag
him now". I do think that there is a generic model for getting into a
girls knick-knacks. And the difference is not only gender based.
Sometimes you just have to take a look at yourself in a mirror to
realise how you look to others. But its nice to share anything with
someone you can relate to. Someone who can listen to your 94
objections including everything you feel your parents threw at you (if
they did) to suggest you didn't "need" to be straight or find a
girlfriend - they would still "love" you. I think we just need to get
into that place where we know what we have to do and are willing to
shelve our objections for a while. I quite think that one-on-one
coaching is the best method for this - if you can afford it. And I'm
not saying this as someone who claims to be the biggest pua ever, they
are just the thouhgts my own reflections on the matter give rise to.
Anyhow, all the best Jack...

Jim.

[BettorO...@aol.com]

> How does that post help the discussion?
>

It doesn't. We all know what haters are. Every decent PUA has
many. Men who do poorly with women qre often jealous of those who do
(I'm referring to the hater not to you).

> If she was talking to the staff, she may work there. Maybe she just
> finished her shift, etc.
>
> As for the opener - Yes, something neutral like "Hi" would have
> worked. If she wants to talk, she'll be receptive, if not, she'll just
> be polite and go back to whatever she was doing.
>
> No need to lie. If you actually got stood up, cool. If not, I would
> just use something else.
>
> In any case, in a bar setting, you're there to chill after a long day,
> wind down, be sociable, have a beer or whatever, not to pick chicks
> up. You don't want to force a pick up.

I disagree with this on a few levels:

1. Women are ALWAYS looking for men. Pick their dream man, then
insert whichever lame excuse they would use on another man, to see if
it holds up.

Would she reject Brad Pitt becuase the timing or venue were bad? Get
real.

Usually the "mistakes" in this situation were made in the years
leading up. This is why I wrote Bettor Off Single. For years, I had
been fascinated by "The Battle Of Kate," where I had isolated a "super-
elite" (SHB 9.6) to my dorm room, TWICE (second time after she
deliberately left her coat), yet didn't close the deal. Until
recently, I had viewed this as a tactical error, or my being too timid
to just make a move, but that didn't add up, since I had plenty of
options.

As it turned out, my mistake was spending my teen years on male-
oriented bullshit (sports, video games, etc.) rather than developing a
"Kate-positive" (or SHB-positive) lifestyle that would have me ready
to seduce her when the time came. It wasn't that I didn't know what
to say or do to "get laid," but that I had not focused my existence on
becoming the type of man women like Kate wanted.

Even at the time, I began making this adjustment, and it was a
relatively minor gift from Kate -- the score from the musical CHESS --
that tipped me to her "positive stereotyping" of me as a chess
champion. I got the memo, trained as a serious chessplayer for four
years, and got so many incredible women as a result. What I learned
there also led to a lot of theory that is now in this "community."

In chess, the "losing move" is usually made long before the checkmate,
though only strong players will recognize the true first mistake.

Ray Gordon
Bettor Off Single: Why Commitment Is A Bad Gamble For Men
http://www.toosmarttofail.com/bos.pdf

FREE!

[BettorO...@aol.com]

> Hmm, have you tried getting pua training?

For the same reason a -30 golfer should get lessons from a pro?

[spligutherism]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 07:16:31 -0700 (PDT), "BettorO...@aol.com"
<BettorO...@aol.com> wrote:

>Ray Gordon
>Bettor Off Single: Why Commitment Is A Bad Gamble For Men
>http://www.toosmarttofail.com/bos.pdf

www.rayfaq.com

[BettorO...@aol.com]

> I quite think that one-on-one
> coaching is the best method for this - if you can afford it.

That's a commercial industry, not a COMMUNITY. Logically, any PUA
should exhuast all FREE resources before paying a cent, since if they
work, he won't need to pay, or if he does pay even after that, he'll
start off from a better plcle.

The only people who would not recommend this approach tend to have
something to sell.

The problem is that someone BEING a teacher doesn't make them a GOOD
teacher.

The implied argument is this:

1. Great PUAs need coaching.
2. I am a PUA coach
3. Therefore, you need me

Change the argument a bit:

1. Good PUAs need GOOD coaching.
2. I am a PUA coach
3. Therefore, you need me

This argument is not valid, since 3) can be false even if 1) and 2)
are true, i.e., the coach has not established that he is good.

People who believe internet marketing, or what they see on television,
are buying into BRAND NAMES rather than THINKING FOR THEMSELVES. This
is clearly evidenced by the large amounts of money earned by those who
get that "buzz," regardless of the actual quality of their offerings.

Sites like http://www.puafraud.com and http://www.puahate.com detail
story after story of people who have bought into the media reputations
of various gurus.

Ray Gordon
Bettor Off Single: Why Commitment Is A Bad Gamble For Men
http://www.toosmarttofail.com/bos.pdf

FREE!!

[BettorO...@aol.com]

On Jun 5, 3:47 pm, Splig Utherism wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 07:16:31 -0700 (PDT), "BettorOffSin...@aol.com"

Any woman who stands beside a man who makes a posting like that is
endorsing his conduct.

Any woman who marries such a man is jointly liable for any costs of
litigation that might result from such conduct.

Any man stupid enough to believe an internet hater has just revealed
why he has never gotten the women he wants. Same for anyone stupid
enough not to read a free book that would literally SOLVE their love
lives.

Ray Gordon
Bettor Off Single: Why Commitment Is A Bad Gamble For Men
http://www.toosmarttofail.com/bos.pdf

FREE!!

My formal rebuttal to all my haters can be found here:
http://www.toosmarttofail.com/puatruths.pdf

[v1l...@gmail.com]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to begin.

The Kate-positive concept is intriguing to hear articulated from someone else, being not far removed from a similar approach I indulged a few years ago. There are strengths in growth and redefinition, but shed skin too many times ( or unnaturally and too quickly) and you might find yourself in the situation of not knowing what to do when you finally get your prize, assuming you even still want it, or have any idea what you truly want.

So, predictably, I just finished reading Strauss' The Game, as a follow up from Long Hard Road Out of Hell, and with zero prior awareness of the community or the Style persona. Interesting and very conflicting read for me, but nonetheless enough to provoke dropping into the forum.

My take on some of what happened in the story is that the metamorphosis was too quick and too drastic to adjust, leaving people without their bearings once they had the power to take what they wanted... or at least that's how I project my own issues on it. My own version of Kate-positive is where I place a lot of blame.

Enjoyed Jim's post also, looking forward to lurking here for a bit.
Cheers,

v1ll41n

[BettorO...@aol.com]

Strauss's evolution and mine into a "Kate-positive" lifestyle bear little resemblance to each other. I was a steadily improving AFC for five years when I met Kate, with each woman better than the previous one, and by the time I found Kate, there were no "better' women anywhere, period. Strauss was sent on a journalistic mission to document much of the theory that debuted here years before he found the "community."

Without "The Battle Of Kate," much of the theory of this communityd oes not exist. It was like a championship chess match that evolved the theory. All I knew at the time was that the "best" woman in the world was on her way to my dorm room at 2:30 am for an obvious booty-call, and I just short-circuited. I spent most of my adult life correcting every last tactical error I had made with Kate, only to realize I had been correcting STRATEGIC errors as well, such as by learning chess, massage, hypnosis, etc.

The Kate-positive lifestyle just means putting getting laid by the hottest women on earth above all other priorities, and making every decision based on what will improve your chances of success. Whereas I thought I had "failed" with Kate by not going for the lay in my dorm, I was actually correct not to make the move, since I wanted her to want me 24/7, not on a whim at a keg party. I had other women I could have gotten sex from if that were the case.

In retrospect, my mistakes with Kate were made in the year leading up. All that time spent on bullshit that women don't care about, instead of what they do. When I see PUAs looking for short-term answers, I think of athletes who want steroids to replace legitimate, long-term improvement.

I never set out to be a PUA. That happened by accident after years of trying to find my soulmate, failing to get Kate, and just not wanting to marry anyone else ("reluctant PUA game").

I put BOS out there for anyone who wants a bloueprint for seducing literally the sexiest women on earth. Some men treat the book as their Bible, but most go for the overhyped, marketed crap, or they just do what the media says and follow that stuff.

Here's a link to 29 reasons Not To be A Nice Guy, which I wrote in 1999, six years before The Game: http://www.toosmarttofail.com/29reasons.pdf

Check it out and see if it sheds any new light on the community for you.

Ray Gordon
Bettor Off Single: WhY Commitment Is A Bad Gamble For Men
http://www.toosmarttofail.com/bos.pdf

FREE!

[spligutherism]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:16:58 -0700 (PDT), "BettorO...@aol.com"
<BettorO...@aol.com> wrote:


www.rayfaq.com