Jenni, using the third person and first person in the same narrative is not preferred. You're better than that.

Thanks. That's basically what I figured. :/ I wouldn't want him to put his energy toward "being friends" with me when he could be trying more with other girls.

movie,

A+

:/


3bet: wtf dude

Do you seriously believe this?

I fit those exact requirements if someone can put the game in I will take this up... Height is way overplayed by short people, it makes such little different in reality.

Yes, I do, and you are wrong. If you're 6'3 and in shape and your goal is to get laid and you're not getting laid more than once a week, either your face is heinous or you're doing it seriously wrong. (edit: or, as I said above, your standards are high. Nothing wrong with this, but if you just want sex you will have a comically easy time finding it with 5's.)

Height is enormously important for men.

I agree with rungoodrun. Just because you're 6'3 doesn't mean you can get away just by "not having a hideous face". You need to actually have "game" and other traits that make you attractive.

Ice Cold,
How tall are you?

Obviously you need to not be totally awkward in your interacting with women, that will short-circuit anybody. But if you're tall and athletic and have good pics you can be a high school dropout who just got fired from the paper mill and you can pull on OKC/POF. You won't get 8's that way but you will get 5's.

Still disagreeing. May need pics of your 5s to clarify.

It's probably important to define what your version of a 5 is. Take away height (obviously you'd still have to be at least average height) from your hypothetical scenario, but still maintain all the other said qualities and you should be able to bang 5s on the regular anyway.

Obviously this is possible, but 100 different girls in a year would be a full time job, or you would have no life, but going on dates and having 1 night stands, which would be ridiculous over the course of year. I'd say after a month you'd just give up on new girls since I'd rather send a quick text to a girl I've already hooked up with than put in the effort with a new girl, especially if the whole goal is sex given we're accepting 5s...

Ya I am 6'4, athletic and live in a decent sized city I know for a fact Ice Cold Nuts is doing one of two things:

-Doesn't understand a bell curve/what a 5 is
- Speaking out of his ass

More than likely a combo of both.

Albeit I do thnk me being 23 cuts off a lot of the 24-26 range of girls which is prime time for online dating because its post college. If I combined both online dating and Tinder(which I dont really consider online), as well as drastically lower my standards, I could feasibly do 50 in a year, but 100 is lol.

I would have sex with my definition of a 5, but I wouldnt want to spend money to **** my version of a 5. 6+ crew checking in.

That said I still dont think there are enough 5s+ willing to put out early for 100 in a year.

I am only dating girls who are 7+/10 and skinny.

I am assuming they are harder work than other girls, but now I have been doing this a few months I don't want to chase what I am not attracted to.

What is everyone itt saying 7 is? What % are 7+?

I think in general people give out 7s+ like they are free candy on halloween.-

I have posted my general breakdown somewhere else before but off the top of the dome its something liek this:

10= 1/1000 (although this number can change to whatever you feel like effectively)
9-10=1/200
8-9=1/70
7-8 = 1/20
6-7= 1/7

That means 6-10 and 1-4 each take up ~21%, leaving 58% to fall within the 4-6 range. Which I am fine with



Edit: looking bad I think even this is a very lose definition, 7-8 should probably be closer to 1/30.

This thread is about to get really stupid again if it turns into a debate about what a 5 or a 7 is. I just think ICN should post pictures of the types of girls he thinks you can bang 100 of in a year just by being tall and in shape to clarify what exactly it is he's suggesting.

This thread ran its course months ago. so little of what even gets discussed now is specific to online dating.

Those figures look about right to me. Personally, I'd rather just beat off then fall asleep than chase anything below a 7. Some people will think that's crazy talk, but it's not worth the effort.

Anybody decent looking can bang out a ton of 5's lol. But who wants to do that?

Also I think men overvalue height, or rather overestimate it's value for women. I understand it is biologically one of 3 main factors women are physically attracted to in men (symmetrical features aka good looking, muscles, and height), but some of you make it sound like ALL it takes to bang out cuties is be 6'2+ and white. I know a lot of 6'2+ average/decent looking white guys and they hardly clean up.

Also you should check out the stats on it. Lifetime delta of sexual partners between 5'7 and 6'0 is like 1 (9 vs 10) and so forth. Same thing with OkC's reported reply rates and rate of getting messaged. There's an undeniable edge to height, but it's more like +30-60% chance of success (that's like 1 message a week vs 1.5 lol) you guys make it sound like 300-3000%.

Anybody with average looks and height should be able plow through fields of chicks if they have stellar game. The entire ****ing PUA community is evidence of that, whether you like them or not. You sub-6'2 guys who suck with girls need to stop making excuses and if you're so insecure about your lack or height and lack of looks then hit the gym and at least get 1/3 things women are biologically documented to be attracted to physically in men

It's got nothing to do with excuses, and obviously an awkward 6'2" will not get laid often, whilst an outgoing 5'10 guy who is good looking will. Height just provides a serious advantage and there's nothing you can do to help yourself in the department.

6'2"-6'4" is optimal, anything below 6' is a disadvantage, anything below 5'9" is a serious disadvantage and the lower you go below 5'9" it gets exponentially worse.

That's not to say no one can overcome a height disadvantage, or some lanky awkward 6'3" dude can fall into girls left and right, but it is an undeniable advantage being taller.

Nobody's saying that height isn't an advantage, but the notion of height being the deciding factor in whether you bang 100+ Girls a year or not is absurd.

i know that this is a poker forum and most of yall seem like math nerds, but bringing math into a dating thread is so lol

Sure any good looking guy who puts in serious work into online dating can clean up if he lowers his standards. Tinder 5s and below basically openly solicit sex. I know it's OKC but look at the convo El D posted on the last page. The taller you are the easier you have it with desirable girls.

He said he was really good looking. Never mentioned height