Hiatus Schmiatus, and Thoughts on Day Game

by GK on April 26, 2011 · 12 comments

As I return from New York and Miami, and figuratively from Mexico, I feel a bit like Jimmy Chitwood in “Hoosiers.” It’s time for me to start blogging again.

 I’ll have more to say in the days ahead, but I wanted to get one thought off my chest. This regards meeting women during the day, or day game, as we affectionately call it.

I still get surprised when guys approach me for strictly day-game coaching, as a couple have done this year. I’m not sure if it’s more about me — I did earn a reputation for teaching it when I was coaching regularly — or them. But over the years I have met a lot of guys who saw day game as some kind of better environment for meeting high-quality women than bars.

I think there’s some truth to this, but I also feel compelled to say that guys may be romanticizing the idea.

I’m sure you’ve witnessed a scene like this: some hot chick in her 20s stumbling around drunkenly after the bars close, her clothes disheveled, and maybe you’re thinking, “Damn, she’d be attractive if she weren’t such a mess. I should meet smart girls in bookstores and coffee shops. They don’t party like that.”

But who’s to say that very girl wasn’t in a bookstore earlier that day? I’ve dated and made friends with a lot of women in my years, and I can say that some of the craziest were some of the most educated. And they went to museums and cafes too. (I could follow this up by saying all women are at least a little crazy, but you knew that, didn’t you?)

On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of high-quality women — the kind who can hold their alcohol, have interesting lives and hold jobs — who like to drink or dance at night. And I’d rather go out with those kinds of women than the ones who call it a day at 6 p.m. on a Friday.

Does location matter when meeting women? Absolutely. And here in San Francisco, there really are a segment of attractive women who don’t party much and are more likely to be out during the day. If that sounds more like your type, then by all means, go stop them in the park and talk to them about crepes, bicycles and David Sedaris books.

Just know that when you meet a woman in the day, you’re meeting just one side of her, just as she’s meeting one side of you. Don’t put her on any pedestals before she’s earned it.


1 scn May 1, 2011 at 6:17 pm

Hey, great to see you blogging!

Good point that night game is an important channel to finding a quality girl that likes to go out. I’d be interested in more articles on night game.

Maybe starting with how to identify and connect with quality women at night as they seem to put on the same facades as all the rest. Plus:

– Clubs and bars are loud and chaotic making conversation beyond a few shouted words really hard. For example, I was at a loud bar last night and only heard half of what girls were saying. I just used the girls’ expressions to guess at the right response.

– Flowing booze, loud music, flashing lights, and prattling girlfriends serve to shut down girls’ intelligence, attention span, and interest in anything not reality-TV-dramatic. They are out to “have fun.” Going against that grain to strike up a meaningful personal conversation ain’t easy.

– Physical appearances and social status take on exaggerated importance, not easily replaced by conversational skill. For example, I once was at a club with a friend and we were being widely ignored by the cliques around us. Until we were seated at an important VIP table whereupon people just materialized eagerly engaging us. It was ludicrous.

It seems to me that the default vibe of night time socializing is squarely at odds with having sincere conversations to create genuine connection. I’d appreciate better understanding how to translate and employ our techniques for the night.

Specifically I’d like to know what we should intentionally disregard (e.g. ignore social status, declare vulnerabilities upfront) and what we should adapt to accommodate (e.g. do less talking and more acting out).

2 GK May 1, 2011 at 11:15 pm

Thank you, scn.

Those are a lot of questions you have! I’ll touch on them here, but if you want more about your specific situation, you might consider an hour of phone coaching with me.

— You will find women of various quality at night venues, and it helps to know what kind of women the venue attracts. You better believe I screen the bars and clubs I go to so I’m likelier to meet my kind of girls.

— I don’t know what kind of nightlife options you have, but if you’re having trouble hearing the girls, go places where it’s not as loud, such as wine bars, lounges or outdoor bars. However, with practice I’ve become good at talking to girls in loud places, and perhaps you can too.

— No offense, but what is wrong with women who want to have fun at bars? If you can’t have fun conversations with girls, day or night, you won’t get very far. Save the deep discussions for later.

— I’ll be discussing this more deeply in an upcoming post, but I believe physical appearance always matters more to women than conversational skills when you first meet them. If she doesn’t find you good looking, you have no shot unless she’s using you for something. As for social status, it depends on where you are. It matters much more at a Miami nightclub than a mellow San Francisco bar.

I actually think all guys should practice meeting women in louder places, because it forces to them to communicate better non-verbally, which matters more to women anyway. It made a big difference for me.

I hope that helps.

3 scn May 2, 2011 at 6:25 am

Thanks GK for your helpful thoughts. What you say makes a lot of sense to me. I hope you decide to write more on these topics.

Other seduction schools focus very heavily on techniques to grab attention, entertain, and demonstrate value at clubs and bars in order to win over girls who are out to have fun.

I thought the CA philosophy largely rejected that approach as shallow and gimmicky, instead relying on directness and candid personal conversation to advance seduction.

But if we should indeed “just have fun” with women and save the deep discussions for later, then I’d be interested in learning more about the right ways to be “having fun” with women to seduce them. In contrast to the ways taught by schools like Love Systems.

4 GK May 2, 2011 at 10:37 am

You’re welcome, man. I think a lot of guys misinterpreted what CA was teaching. Hence, the “relate and reward” robots who couldn’t get any girls.

Actually, I DO think a lot of the “fun” techniques the Community teaches are shallow and gimmicky. They go to the other extreme, and women end up with no impression of who the guy actually is, so they never see him again. You want a mix of both when you’re first connecting with someone, but fun should be a higher priority than deep conversation. Even better, see if you can make your deep conversation fun.

This post I wrote provides some examples of how you can have fun: http://www.gkdating.com/?p=1383

Here is another: http://www.gkdating.com/?p=309

5 scn May 3, 2011 at 7:40 am

Your idea of how important fun is for seduction connects the dots for me.

I think neglecting the art of creating fun is a huge oversight in CA’s teachings, which really just focus on creating personal connection. Hence all the “relate and reward robots” and gravitation to sedate settings like bookstores, museums, and coffee shops.

But if fun is just as crucial as deep conversation for successful seduction, I sure wish there were a full set of principles and robust techniques around how to thoughtfully create fun.

6 GK May 3, 2011 at 11:12 am

In the defense of CA, and by extension myself, I would also say we taught a lot of guys well. Many of my best coaching results came in bookstores and other day venues, in fact. It’s just that I often had to remind students that it’s not what you say, but how you say it.

The thing about teaching “fun” is that it applies differently to everyone. My idea of fun could be very different from yours, and if you try acting like me you might have worse results. That’s the whole problem with routines, and why personal coaching works a lot better.

If you don’t know what is fun for you, one great idea is what we used to say at CA: take yourself out on a date and get to know yourself better.

7 scn May 3, 2011 at 3:06 pm

Oh, no comments on your coaching intended. In fact, I think good ex-CA coaches like you build on and extend CA’s teachings to great effect.

However I do see fun as a key omission from CA’s official teachings based on my experiences with Wayne. Wayne simply doesn’t write about, teach, nor coach how to create fun times with girls.

I agree that what each person finds fun is different. Just as what each person finds personal is different. But we nevertheless have a collection of general principles and open-ended techniques to guide us in getting personal with girls. We have no such principles and techniques to guide us in having fun with girls.

Knowing what is fun for me is a great start. Next is uncovering what is fun for her, choosing an intersection that works for seduction purposes, devising things to do and say that create fun, signaling between us about what’s going on, escalating fun, avoiding miscommunications and pitfalls, etc. I think there is an art to how to intelligently have fun with a girl that is not being taught anywhere.

8 Barry O'Herlihy May 6, 2011 at 6:59 am

Firstly welcome back Greg. It’s always nice to hear what you have to say.

Regarding your post above, I feel you seem over-critical of day game. Sure, at some stage we all romanticize about daygame but isn’t that natural? I mean, I’ve met men who over obsess over night time approaches and see this obsession leading them to considering a night out as a success or failure on whether they get laid or not rather than having fun with friends. That’s the danger of deciding when and where is appropriate to approach because lets face it, if we did so we’d never try unless everything was perfect. For me, I disregard location for the most part- ok I’m not going to “sarge” alone in Victoria Secrets etc- as it’s inappropriate and only leads you to using excuses. Maybe in big cities like SF location matters but here where I reside (Cork, Ireland) meeting people outside of bars/ clubs etc isn’t so easy. Maybe I am alone in thinking location shouldn’t define whether to speak to someone or not, as that loud girl at the bar playing games with her friends may be fascinated and or talented by art or history that’s found in a museum.

Lastly, I fully agree. Those who go out early, want serious conversation and hit the sack early aren’t my cup of tea either but as you mentioned above maybe we’re only seeing one side of them.

Anyway….Just a thought. Welcome back!

9 GK May 6, 2011 at 10:36 am

Thanks for the comment Barry! As far as location goes, I think it matters that a guy meet women where it aligns with his lifestyle — hence, no Victoria’s Secret for me, either. And it *might* affect the caliber of women.

I’m all for meeting women during the day — my post was more a word of warning for less experienced guys who think they’re bound to meet a certain “type” of girl in the day.

I was in Ireland last year — gorgeous place!

10 Barry O'Herlihy May 6, 2011 at 1:31 pm

To clarify, I’m not condoning approaching women in womens stores when you’re not “alone” either.

Ya, I agree. creating “types” is as dangerous as rating women in my opinion!

Fáilte Ireland will be so happy with you man!

11 D December 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm

But as you get older, do you really want to be the 45 year old at the bar hitting on 23 year olds?

12 GK December 6, 2012 at 9:51 pm

Who knows D, maybe I will be someday! Or maybe I’ll be 45 and hitting on other 45-year-olds in bars. Or maybe I’ll be married. I see nothing inherently wrong with any of those scenarios.

Comments on this entry are closed.