Why I get skeptical every-time a city is long regarded as great for game.
#1
This coronavirus shutdown has had me in my head a bit too much but I've been wanting to throw this out there.

Certain cities out there have long withstood the test of time to be famously regarded as being good for "game". Call it gender ratios, openness of the women, sexually free cultures, laid back social attitudes, and the local atmosphere encouraging casual hookups. NYC, Miami, and Montreal are three cities in North America that have long withstood this test of time, maybe for well over a decade. 

Now I get skeptical for a good reason here and I think every guy should too. There is no possible way that these cities remain good for this long in this age where information is easily exchanged. I'll give an example, when I stayed in Canada, I had a number of friends who left Toronto to go to Montreal specifically for the dating and women. Well, this just fucks up the gender ratios, no one wants more dudes in a fucking city, especially not from a culturally dry and low quality city as a Toronto. 

Even when I lived in the Bay Area, tons of men who heard that NYC had favorable gender ratios moved from the Bay Area to NYC. Tech companies were opening offices in NYC left to right and lots of men made that move. 

The other issue is that large cities commonly regarded as poor for dating (Toronto and Sanfranshitshow come to mind) are cities I notice have a lot of narcissistic and toxic women but otherwise lame party scenes, they don't have that cool factor going for them like a Miami or NYC might. Not only are the thirsty dudes flooding into an NYC for instance, the same toxic personality validation hungry mediocre looking skag from a San Francisco or Toronto is moving to an NYC or Miami when that place could have been taken by a good looking girl from the east coast or Europe.

I make the post longer than it needs to be to give examples but it's like common sense, if something great is understood to be great and popular, then a lot of people will rush to it. Overtime what happens is that the quality of people rushing to it gets lower and lower and lower to where you're stuck with thirsty PUAs, narcissistic skags looking to go wherever they can be cool to their friends back home, and otherwise low quality people.

Insult me or call me whatever but it's almost like a tragedy of game.

As an old saying goes, good things don't last.
Reply
#2
Have you ever actually been to any of the cities that you describe (NYC, Miami, Montreal)? Or are you just making these claims based on what you have heard people say? From my experience, there are some cities clearly better for game than others, and this has mostly withstood the test of time.

All of us on this corner of the internet are anomalies. As a whole, very few men actually make permanent moves purely for better gender ratios. Most men get married by their late 20s and are fine chasing pussy in college and an occasional trip to Vegas or Thailand. While its theoretically possible for smaller places to get ruined by cheap flights and data on the internet, its not going to happen for a city as big as NYC or Miami.

Moreover, while there are clearly some cities that are better for game than others, this implies that you already have decent game. Meaning - if you're going out in San Francisco every night and can't get laid despite approaching thousands of women a year, you're not just going to walk into NYC and start pulling like casanova. One needs to have a baseline level of competence to pull anywhere in the West.
Reply
#3
I think every guy has their own vibe and does well in certain places. I'm an East Coast guy, I do well in all the Northeast cities + Florida. Basically, the I-95 sewer pipe. lol. Chicago is good to me also. European chicks also love me and I have a special rapport with French girls. A lot of guys don't do well in DC and say it's the "worst place for men". For me, it was actually the best city, better than NYC.

I wouldn't recommend anyone bases where they game based on someone else's review.
Reply
#4
Being sceptical of cities regarded as day game meccas is very wise, most PUA's have low standards. Take St Petersburg for example, many call it DG paradise, though personally I can be walking around in the city for a long time and not find anything over a 6 to talk to.
Reply
#5
Agreed with fullthrottle, it really depends on what types of places and people you vibe better with. I've done pretty well in Miami whereas I've met guys who regularly outpull me in LA that can't get table scraps there. Really just depends how you present yourself and adjust to different circumstances.

Unless you're in an oil boomtown in the Dakotas or an Inuit village in Canada, there are probably some women to pursue in your location. As an example, people shit on San Francisco as a place with no attractive women where it's impossible to pull, yet I've spent a lot of time there and always see cute girls who are pretty approachable. Obviously nobody should move there for women, but if you're there for the $$ (likely), you can do worse. I imagine similar things can apply to Toronto.... there's like 6 million people in the Toronto metro.
Reply
#6
Some cities have a lot of pick up locations in one spot, with relatively inexpensive lodging nearby. This helps a lot. Being next door to a meat market bar that attracts good looking women who you can pull could be more important than any other factor.
Reply
#7
I think the problem is that people usually have a black and white approach to cities. If for some reason they pulled 0 girls in a city, that city is 'dead' or 'has ugly girls' and whatnot. Sometimes people will try to rationalise it that so they don't have to blame themselves, which is wrong. And if they fail in a city, they should ask themselves why they failed and work on it. If for some reason they pulled 100 girls in a different city, that city becomes pussy paradise.
I agree that the vibe is important and there are many different factors that come into play. And let's be honest, staying only 2 weeks in a city won't cut it and by city I am talking about places with at least 100'000 inhabitants, spread out of course, not to mention bigger cities like New York, Tokyo, London or even Lima. How can people declare after 2 weeks that said city is dead when they barely know it? It requires 1-6 months to understand a city with its unique characters and different districts.
Reply
#8
I think the only real problem is everywhere has been getting worse as a whole. Typically the reasons a place is better in the first place makes it better than the other places, it just isn't as good as it once was. You can counteract that by learning more about the place you live and knowing what to do and what not to do. This helps substantially in foreign countries because there is much more to learn before you peak (language, culturue, friends, etc) which can take years to peak.
Reply
#9
Some cities are actually conglomerations of many smaller cities. For example, I wonder if "New York City" can even be considered "a city"? It would be a collection of many neighborhoods which have their own character and meat markets. The same can be said for many major cities, like Tokyo, Shanghai, etc. Striking out after 2 weeks would just mean you hadn't quite found the best spot, not that the city was dead. Now there are some countries, especially in the third world, where there is a huge disparity between the capital and other areas of the country, and the capital itself might only support one concentrated area's meat markets despite having a huge population, so you have the available women from a pool of millions of people going through the same small number of meat markets.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)