Is coaching practically worth it?

Are you/do you have any of the following attributes and/or behaviours?:

1. over 40
2. creepy
3. overweight
4. muslim
5. bald
6. uncharismatic
7. under 5″9
8. not fun
9. unstylish
10. submissive

I place this list in my perceived order of decreasing importance. You will in all likelihood be shit at daygame irrespective of what coaching you receive if you carry six or more of these attributes and therefore will be unable to secure the interest of prime-aged females (18 to 30). If you seek coaching be absolutely clear that no amount of being taught technicals or aping rote repetition of openers and stacks will ever get you past a girls attraction screen. If your tool for demolishing a wall is a toothpick – and you record yourself endlessly picking away at a wall but never seeing it collapse – do not expect a coach to offer any practical advice for demolishing a wall when the only tool you can muster is a toothpick. They will take your money and offer the rote learning package but at the end of the day no amount of feedback and advice will change that metaphorical toothpick. The wall will, and must, remain. Instead, work solo on improving what you can improve and obfuscating what you cannot improve. We all have inherent bio-behavioural weaknesses. Assess yours ruthlessly before you turn to coaching.

If you have/are:

1. good-looking/masculine
2. have hair
3. in your 20s to mid-30s
4. use arbitrage/play to the novelty (i.e. do daygame overseas)
5. creative conversationalist
6. resilient
7. naturally confident
8. well-groomed/dressed
9. tall
10. approach lots

I place this this list in order of decreasing importance. If you are + in this list you will likely have a very good foundation for daygame and not really be in need of any coaching. At best, you will require some support on the technicals such as how to stop a girl properly and some feedback on voice tone, eye contact, pacing etc. Basic stuff. But you already have the components to create a scenario where the girl will listen to you because you have already passed her initial passive attraction screening thereby allowing you to value-drop and build rapport. There is very little that a coach can offer you if you are lucky enough to be + in this category save for the technicals. Your bio-behavioural value-adds will carry the day in most cases. Of the above list, I myself say that I have two of the negatives and seven of the positives putting myself at slightly above average once the two lists are adjusted. Age is the most common recognisable rejection for me.

Most guys who are good at daygame are “+” in the package listed above. They are either naturally ‘this way’, or are simply dating within the parameters of a socially acceptable age-cohort, or they have increased their value by improving their aesthetic through: focussing on the gym to enhance musculature, testosterone therapy, hair transplants, cosmetic surgery to reduce the appearance of ageing, updating fashion seasonally and gaming near-exclusively in foreign markets. Points 4 & 5 in the second + category are especially important and place you in a strong position to exploit fast-sex from low-impulse control, attention-seeking, low-self esteem girls and play to the Oooo lets fuck a foreigner/novel experience market sector of foreign girls. Consume enough of these stories and the mythology becomes demonstrated: game, whatever that term means and stands before becomes a salvation (just learn game, the clueless Red-pill American accounts parrot ad nauseam). This in turn creates a largely positive feedback effect in the community, where a host of multivariate factors (namely 1-10 in “+” above) are ignored for the less parsimonious explanation – i.e by the blanket of Game with a capital G perpetuated as a thing anyone can be ‘taught’ and thus consumed uncritically by those in hope – specifically the dwellers in the “-” ecology, above.

BroodingSea