PDA

View Full Version : Do I risk losing value by opening target direct + micro cal question



Effortless Sheek
10-2008-27, 02:14 AM
I have been thinking about alot of my recent sets and which went best from which didn't.

I find that sometimes when I see a girl I'm really attracted to I will go right up to her and try a GWM style sexual state projection approach with just BASIC talk. I find this quite effective escpecially with girls I'm really attracted to as my desire is stronger and they pick up on it more as it conveys more value (sexual value). On other sets though I've opened the set and I find myself 'treading water' and not getting to show my interest to her as I'm telling stories to the group and getting bored. This ends up in a stale set because it's no fun for me and thus I am not motivated and stale it out.

Thing is though there are times that I will open the target direct and she won't bite down on my sexual state projection right away. As such then I am thinking I may have 'blown my cover' in a sense having shown too much interest. I think as long as I calibrated such that I didn't CONTINUE showing interest then I wouldn't lose value. If I went right into my material if she didn't bite down right away (show more value before escalating) then I woudln't lose value. Thing is though is I lose the chance to use group theory to my advantage when doing this although I potentially save myself time if she IS into my approach right away.

I guess the crux of my post is what is the best balance between the two such that I take the path of least resistance to my desired goal.

I find that with sexual state projection it is one or the other with regards the SSP and running attract material because when I do attract material it engages her logical (emotional also but logical to an extent) brain somewhat such that it disengages her sexual state. Having said that there is other stuff I could add in like push pull which could escalate for me whilst putting on the brakes, this is something I don't do much of currently. The best sexual state I find comes with BORING SIMPLE convo so as to not take her out of state. At the same time though if logistically I can't get within proximity of the girl then the sexual state will not 'spark' as SSP has a very short range for it to have full effect. As such routines are merely a logistical tool to facilitate isolation with the girl. The other thing is averting cockblocks, as if I go right up and begin 'projecting' to the girl ignoring the friends I'm more likey to get blocked so I guess it's usually best to do a routine or two at first to test the waters and then try to isolate after.

I think going less direct is the better method so long as I'm compliance testing enough that I can check where everyone is at. The last week or two I was trying the oldschool indirect way of not asking ANY questions until the girls asks ME questions. Although this sounded nice on paper as a way to not show any kind of interest and thus not lose value I found it not so useful in field as you are restricted from gauging their compliance. So, I would keep running Attract material when maybe I could have moved into rapport. This had alot of sets with me just coming off aloof and arrogant and not getting any play! :eek: I'm thinking it'd be better to open- do a value piece to the group- then ask a small question- ie a small complaince request- to gauge interest. If it's a no go I could then IOD and DHV again without losing value, however if it's a go I could escalate within a shorter time.

I guess the crux of my thoughts are what is the ideal of showing enough interest that you can compel IOI in the shortest amount of time possible but not showing too much interest (with no IOI in return) so as to tank your value. I guess the answer is in my last sentence and something I recall Sinn saying in the original post- keep pushing compliance until she begins IODing but stop before you tank your value. If you don't ask you won't get. Pushing the compliance threshold.

What are other's thoughts on this?

nereis
10-2008-27, 06:31 AM
Direct game is inherantly high risk. She doesn't like you at first glance, you get blown out. Simple as that. Getting blown out will kill your value in any venue. I only go direct in daygame, when I can't afford more than half an hour off.

Effortless Sheek
10-2008-27, 06:48 AM
On that point I would have to strongly disagree with you old boy.

Having tried direct extensively in my time I have found your value ONLY tanks to her or anyone else if YOU become reactive to HER reaction. If you don;t give a shit and carry on like it didn't happen it actually INCREASES your value as it shows you have a strong frame and are not easily perturbed.

Also read up on Vin dicarlo's posts particularly his 'Value and Compliance' post which thoroughly details what I describe above.

I think indirect is about tippytoing your value up with the least risk whereas direct is about making bold moves and not caring so much for the consequences and as such showing value through these more risky moves as you do them unapologetically. I think there is a place for both though, which is what I'm working on right now.

Escalate boldly till you get resistance then go indirect to raise your value till you can escalate again. That is the frame I'll be playing with in the coming weeks. Of course which you emphasise also depends on logistics. IE you can be more bold on a lonewolf whereas if you do it for a big set ignoring targets then you'll meet more resistance so it's better to win them over (indirectly) first. So calibraiton, as usaul, is key.

silverghost
10-2008-27, 07:40 AM
On that point I would have to strongly disagree with you old boy.

Having tried direct extensively in my time I have found your value ONLY tanks to her or anyone else if YOU become reactive to HER reaction. If you don;t give a shit and carry on like it didn't happen it actually INCREASES your value as it shows you have a strong frame and are not easily perturbed.

Also read up on Vin dicarlo's posts particularly his 'Value and Compliance' post which thoroughly details what I describe above.

I think indirect is about tippytoing your value up with the least risk whereas direct is about making bold moves and not caring so much for the consequences and as such showing value through these more risky moves as you do them unapologetically. I think there is a place for both though, which is what I'm working on right now.

Escalate boldly till you get resistance then go indirect to raise your value till you can escalate again. That is the frame I'll be playing with in the coming weeks. Of course which you emphasise also depends on logistics. IE you can be more bold on a lonewolf whereas if you do it for a big set ignoring targets then you'll meet more resistance so it's better to win them over (indirectly) first. So calibraiton, as usaul, is key.

So that answers your question right?:)

Effortless Sheek
10-2008-28, 02:04 AM
Ok, update...

To field test this properly I decided to do the apocalypse opener (extreme direct) ALL night- probably over 20 times I went like this- 'Hey hows it going, what you doing later? Want to come home with me?' I got horrible results and blown out and feeling like a jackass at the end of the night. Blow out and bitch shields galore.

I got two makeouts (like I do EVERY night I go out) but the girls just walked off right after (like they do EVERY night I go out).

So yea direct SUCKS. I'm going back to aloof coquette not giving the girl a hint of slack and MAKING HER CHASE. I find it silly when guys from other camps say that indirect is 'ego protection'- it is just what works. This really seems the ONLY viable option in a club.

John Sacrimoni
10-2008-28, 03:26 PM
Direct doesn't "suck". You're outcome dependent and that's why you get blown out.