Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote in
news:-K2dnQvXK7UNXqfbnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@
pghconnect.com:
>>>> The gal in the middle was the target. After all, the older married
>>>> woman was old... married... and not great looking. But, the more
>>>> the older gal tried to push me away, the more the one in the middle
>>>> did to try to get me to stay. Of course, I found out it was also
>>>> pissing off her girlfriend... the gal on the right. After a few
>>>> more exchanges of banter, she slides over and sits in her lap.
>>>> Didn't want the gal, but it was fun as hell and great practice and
>>>> learning.
>>>
>>> Kind of like picking horse races without betting actual money on the
>>> picks.
>>
>> Okay. Sounds like a fairly okay analogy to me. I can enjoy watching
>> the races without wagering any money on the outcome.
>
> Most people can, though it's hardly the same experience.
Doesn't seem vastly different to me. Then again, I don't bet money I
can't afford to lose. So, I don't get overly worried or emotionally
invested in the outcome of wagers I place. I might, however, get
emotionally invested in the outcome, independant of wagering. It's why I
sometimes can watch someone else playing and betting on blackjack and
feel just as connected to the game as if I was playing it myself.
>>I can even be just as
>> excited and learn just as much from doing it. It's not as risky, but
>> then also not as likely to garner any winnings either.
>
> Actually, it's very risky. Who wants to pick winners they don't bet?
I would. It's not risky at all, at least as I view it. Again, I don't bet
money I can't afford to lose... only a fool would do such a thing. So,
why not pick winners, independant of a wager on the outcome?
> Then, if you're testing a method, you have to win three times: once to
> test it, once to confirm it, and once with real money. By "testing"
> it immediately, you actually save money and time. That's also true of
> pickup theory in that you can find out more in the field than by
> watching someone else in the field (or reading about it online).
Is the outcome different between a wager with money and without. No, it
is not. Actually, testing a method, involving gambling, would require far
more than just three tests. Very few forms of gambling even have a
dependant outcome... most games are true games of chance... the outcome
of the previous game has no effect on the next whatsoever. The only two
games I know of where this is not true would be blackjack... where the
cards being played reduce as the game plays... and slots, where a machine
(or group) has a set win/los ratio, making it plausible, though extremely
difficult, to watch a losing slot, and then be able to suggest that it is
"due".
But, placing a wager in no way changes the outcome of ANY form of
gambling I've ever seen.... well... there is an exception, of sorts, to
this... a large wager placed on a game with variable odds, such as horse
racing, could cause the odds to be lowered as larger wagers are placed.
In such a manner, it is totally unrelated to pickup, as the odds of
successful pickup DO change based on wager and on player control and
action. I can not, without losing the use of my knees, influence the
outcome of a gambling wager directly. Only poker, and perhaps blackjack,
offer any sort of true player controlled influence on the outcome. You
could perhaps say that it is possible for a skilled craps shhoter to
influence the toss of the dice... but I'd refer back to my comment about
the use of his knees if caught.
With pickup, however, the outcome is almost completely player influenced.
Very little is outside the influence of the person performing the pickup
attempt. This is why several gurus state that a failed pickup is not the
woman's fault.
>> Still... it's fun and educational and it could be a good warm-up for
>> the real gaming.
>
> I disagree there, as there are several problems.
>
> For example, the "Dr. Z" method was published and showed how people
> could exploit inefficiencies in the place betting pools based on race
> results (horses who had a greater percentage bet to win than to place
> were thought to be good place payoffs due to the effiicency of the win
> market). In practice, however, gamblers did not have the final tote
> data with a minute to post, could not always get their bets in on
> time, and even when they did, too much late money would normalize the
> pools.
Which shows my point... the outcome of the event was not in any way
influenced by the wagering. But, watching the event allowed a person to
view it with the same or nearly excitement as someone that wagered... but
without the fear of loss. Perhaps you can equate fear to excitement. But
I can not. They are seperate feelings.
> In other cases, pool size comes into play (similar to the total hottie
> population in a given area). If your method works on paper, the
> minute you start betting it, you are adding winning tickets to the
> pool and cutting the price. Even at a relatively large track like
> Philadelphia Park, your extra $1.00 on a winning Superfecta ticket
> might cut a $20,000 payoff in half, eliminating all profitability. In
> the win pool, even a $500 bet can slice that 6 percent "theoretical"
> advantage to nothing.
Actually, it only cuts the payout if there are multiple winners. If a
single person wins, then their own wager adds to their payout, not
depletes from it. And what sort of fool bets on a prize where many people
could win at the same time?
As for pickup, pool size is not normally a factor, unless you are placed
in an enviroment of selective distribution. That is, in a location where
the makeup is abnormally tilted toward more men than women or more women
than men. Most populations tend towards a normal 50-50 ratio of women to
men. There are, of course, exceptions... but even a 60/40 ratio would be
an exception rather than a normal. So, the pool size is pretty much
balanced and evenly set.
> Finally, people are willing to take (necessary) risks "in theory" a
> lot more quickly than in practice. If you're not betting, you might
> fancy that 12-1 shot against the heavy 3-5 favorite, but putting your
> actual money on it might be as scary as approaching that 10.
I wouldn't know. I've never really had approach anxiety. Approaching a 10
is no more intimidating to me than approaching her 6' 4" 280#
professional wrestler boyfriend. Then again, my betting is not really
influenced by games of variable chance, since I'm not foolish enough to
play such sucker bets. I play games of chance where I know the odds are
relatively static, or at least static in that I can have some strong
knowledge of what the odds actually are, versus some arbitrary
assessment.
I don't bet football games. (god only knows the real odds) I bet
blackjack. (<1.2%%) I don't bet horse racing, (god only knows the real
odds) I bet roulette. (hard static 5.25%%) I don't bet singing
competitions (Sanjay could win it?), I bet craps. (odds dependant on the
particular number/pass line selected)
Only a fool bets on a game where the odds are totally arbitrary. That
explains, perhaps, your aversion and problems with pickup. The odds are
not arbitrary whatsoever... they are almost wholly based on the skill of
the player.
> There is no way to simulate real-life experience in gambling or
> seduction. The only "research" that counts is actual practice in
> actual, real-life situations. The rest is a simulation, but can never
> be more.
Of course there is. It's called getting out there and doing it. I can go
out to a blackjack table and get tons of experience watching the deal of
the cards, learning to count, understanding deal tells, and other various
nuances of that game. I can go out to a craps table and get plenty of
experience watching the roll of the dice, the layout of the table, the
action from various shooters, and even the attitute from the box man. I
can go out to bars and clubs and watch women and men interacting, learn
body language signals, and even observe various interactions.
Them with this knowledge, I can go out myself, place wagers on the game
(blackjack, craps, pickup) and have some knowledge about means I can use
to increase the odds more to my own favor. Simulation is a means to
garner observations about what can be expected in actual personal
situations. Again, instead of writing books about pickup or horse racing,
you should concentrate on gambling where the odds are not arbitrary and
on pickup in-field, where a "cupid" score is as meaningless as a
handicap.
>>>> But, anyways... one lesson learned... even a line that comes from
>>>> The Game that gets countered by a woman can be used to generate
>>>> even more attraction. Using a single line or routine isn't going to
>>>> do much... but having a few replies ready can make it gold.
>>>
>>> That means it was canned material, and in a situation that wasn't
>>> actually a pickup, just socializing, and women will generally allow
>>> things to happen there that they won't otherwise.
>>
>> Well... the first line was canned. The replies after that were not...
>> just improv to further play around and see what I could get as
>> responses and to see what kinds of game worked better than others.
>
> Still, it wasn't a high-stakes game, as sex was not on the line.
Sure it was. At any time I could have switched from practice mode to full
blown pickup. The fact I did not want to wager on sex does not mean I
could not have. I knew the signals, I knew the game, and I knew the odds.
It's not like horse racing, where everything is arbitrary but the ticket
in your hand. It's more like craps, where I can lay down a bet at any
time and still nkow the odds of the wager.
> Women have their batting practice too.
Yes, they do. Isn't it grand? And the very best part is that they can go
from playful banter to having sex in the bathroom simply by deciding to
do so. It's not exactly unheard of for a woman to go out to "fool
around" with guys and end up fooling around with a guy.
>> It wasn't exactly a pickup... but it also wasn't not a pickup. I
>> could have tried to pick her up, had I decided to.
>
> I always doubt this claim the way I doubt someone would leave a $100
> bill on the street if they found it. If she was so nondescript that
> you'd ignore her, why is she worth a report?
I didn't ignore her, did I? And she wasn't a report.
> The 19 year-old german hottie I had a "set" with on a busride last
> week was one I would have fucked anywhere at any time, and she knew
> it. Could I have closed her? Maybe, but socially it's not easy to be
> rejected in public by a woman half your age, and I don't care who you
> are. That's why I like social-butterfly game as it doesn't carry that
> risk. Another PUA would have closed her in a heartbeat I'm sure, but
> could he have opened her so efficiently or would he have bombed with
> "canned material?"
Well, your "could be" is a far different cry than mine. First off, you'd
have to have actually gone to a bus stop. (and what's your new obsession
with bus stops?) Second, what's the difference between being rejected by
a woman half your age and ont that is your age? Or being selected by one?
If you still have rejection issues... really a form of approach
anxiety... then you should consider making more approaches... with the
idea epxressed by many gurus... approach without a care for the outcome.
If you get laid, great... if not great. Thus, you don't (or shouldn't)
care if you are rejected or not. In fact, often, my goal is to see if I
can get rejected... just for the experience and knowledge of what it
takes to to that point.
You are emotionally investing yourself in the interactions of a single
outcome, Gordon. It's much like betting money you can't afford to lose.
Only a fool does such a thing. Remove your emotional investment from the
interaction. Why should it matter if you get rejected by this woman? Are
your future interactions dependant on the success of this interaction?
It's not like "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" where you can't get to
the $1 Million question without first passing the others.
As for could he have opened efficiently or would he use canned material?
I can't answer for a PUA. But I can answer for me. And my answer is...
does it matter, so long as I open? I can open with "Hi" or with "Excuse
me, I'd like your opinion on..." or even just "Hey, wanna fuck?" So long
as it opens her up... it doesn't matter what the method is. You just do
it. Screw fear. Fear is the mind-killer. If she rejects you... so what?
Hell, you might even see her later and get accepted. I think you are
letting fear rule your life a bit too much.
> Do you really think it was obvious to observe that because she was
> sitting on the pavement, she was down to earth? That pose actually
> impressed me the first time I saw it, which was a few years ago at
> another bus stop. A woman like that isn't made of porcelain, isn't
> self-conscious, and usually far easier to open. That observation
> alone can make the difference in a set.
Could be? I don't know. I wasn't there. But, how can you know what it
meant if you had no frame of reference? And you couldn't, unless you had
observed it previously. Thus, again, we're back to you needing to get out
and watch, observe, learn, and do. Yes, observation can make a
difference. But aren't you the one that was just saying a few moments ago
that such observations are not meaningful. Only an actual pickup attempt
is.
> The set you ran reminds me of one I ran in Georgia with a GBI Agent's
> girlfriend (who was with the GBI agent). My boss was a criminal
> defense attorney that the agent didn't like (in a legal way) because
> my boss could spring almost anyone, but the agent didn't seem to care
> that his girlfriend was flirting with me, even asking me to dance
> (which I refused). I may have made "progress" with the woman, but she
> knew the limitations, as did I. Then again, perhaps the agent wouldn't
> have minded if I had taken her off his hands (she was a bit much).
Once again, if you actually had gone out to Georgia. Damn Ray.. post a
field report. Don't just try to fluff with "I remember when". Give a
decent report with some more details than "There was once a lady from
Nantucket and she liked..." As for the rest... it's a lot of
speculation. If you had some field experience... you might have a better
insight as to whether she was just trying to make her guy jealous... was
really in to you... just wanting to dance... or whatever.
> Once a chick has a built-in cockblock, flirting becomes teasing, and
> responding becomes enabling.
What? Ray... you really need to get out in-field. This makes no sense.
And if you spend a bit of time in-field, you'll understand why.
>>She didn't know and neither
>> did her friends, if I was trying to pick her up or not. They thought,
>> as best I can garner, they thought I was. So they responded as if I
>> was. You see, it's not too difficult to take a "normal" social
>> situation and convert it into a pickup.
>
> Of course it is. It always is. It always will be. If it weren't,
> everyone would already be getting laid all they want with who they
> want.
They aren't? You strech this analogy to a very strong breaking point...
but, it is simple to turn a normal interaction into a pickup attempt. The
operative word is attempt. Success might or not not be guarenteed. I did
not say I could lay the gal... only that I could have tried to pick her
up.
>>It's a bit harder, in my limited experience, to
>> turn a pickup into a social interaction, but not impossible to do.
>> Now granted, I've not spent thousands of hours in field yet... so I
>> might develop different ideas over time... but that's what makes
>> field experience so valuable.
>
> It's valuable if it has a purpose and leads to genuine progress, as in
> fucking a 9 or a 10.
True enough. Assuming, of course, that's the goal. But yes, experience
that has a purpose and leads to a goal can be very valuable.
>> You should consider trying out some experiments in-field yourself and
>> you can understand how that experience can be so valuable. I wish I
>> could convey what field experience is like, but it's really not
>> something you'll understand until you do it yourself.
>
> How odd that someone likely much younger than me forgets that I was
> once a younger age, and in an era that didn't have an internet, where
> we actually had to go out all day and night to socialize.
Actually, I'm guessing we are the same age... or I'm older. I used to
play Battlezone my Freshman year.. when it was considered a cutting edge
vidoe game. I watched Transformers... the first run... on TV. I grew up
listening to the Go-Go's. My "era" didn't have Internet either. The PC
was something only a few rich people owned. My friends across the street
were HYPER-COOL because they had a Commodore 64. But hey... I got Pong...
and then, after a lot of whining... an (gasp) Atari.
So no, unless you're a elegible to be a member of AARP... your age is not
that different than mine. The difference is your mindset is that you are
old. Mine is that I'm in better shape now than I ever was at 18... I'm
better looking... I'm faster and stronger... I'm bolder and more
confident... I'm wiser... and in every way possible, (except a few extra
pounds, for now) I am better now than I ever have been before. And every
day I improve yet more.
> Does he really think that a man my age (40) should be hitting the
> clubs and bars every night? For what purpose? Been there, done that,
> puked in the t-shirt more times than I care to count. The "field" was
> all there was when I was in my gaming prime, and I took to the
> internet only after I had passed the age when closing down bars was a
> normal activity.
Every night? No. I only go on weekends myself. Sometimes on Thursdays,
since that's Ladies Night, and it's pretty fun then, too. I close down
the bar now on a somewhat regular basis. Then again, I'd say about a
fourth to a half of the people in the bar are close to my age. The
youngest I see are 21. (well, there might be younger ones.. but they
aren't stupid enough to admit it) So, that's still within my range. And
theirs. Most of the women in the 24 to 30 age range have no problems at
all about my age. Many of the younger ones don't either. And the ones my
age or older... they are outrightly estatic that they get attention at
all.
Hell... it's not that uncommon to see a gal or two in the mid 30s dancing
with the band. Amid cheers.
> I would say that if one intends to be insulting, as "Speeding"
> apparently does, that it's extremely cowardly to attempt to frame it
> as helpful advice. He certainly wouldn't fool any woman as to his lack
> of courage, and she'd wonder if he was going to be the same way to her
> if she ran afoul of him.
In what way am I insulting? I'm simply telling you to stop whining about
your age and get in the game. You mention courage, but I'm going out to
bars and clubs and having a great time. You are sitting at home, it
seems, waiting for the day you can move to the retirement community. I
fully exepct, one day, when I'm in my 80s, to be in a retimrement
community (assuming I'm not out skydiving or soemthing) but... even when
I'm there... I'll be gaming women.
My age is not a detriment nor is it an excuse. In fact, as I get older,
the advantages shift to me. A woman's largest advantage in reproductive
selection... youth... is diminished with time. A man's largest
advantages... the ones you like to whine about... his wealth, his wisdom,
his confidence, his maturity, his taste, his knowledge, his charm... all
increase with time.
You should be thrilled... you are at an age where your game can be ten
times stronger than any 20 year old man's. You could offer things they
can't hope to... a wisdom they don't yet have... a confidence they have
yet to discover or develop... a maturity they can't contemplate... a
manliness and masulinity they can only hope to have... and yes... a
career that enables you to enjoy yourself and show her a wonderful time.
Right now, you have every single advantage you could ask for... except
one... you lack experience. And you sure as hell aren't going to get it
whining about your age and dreaming about the girl at the bus stop. Get
out to a bar. Go to the clubs. You're going to be surprised... there are
a lot more people there in your age range than you seem to consider.
--
You could be a Cylon and not even know it...
