Feed on

How Much Can Game Do?

Many detractors and doubters of the crimson arts, including but not limited to a rather peculiar yet endearingly patriotic and bracingly truthful subculture of HBD quant geeks, have tried to find and exploit fissures in the foundation of the Chateau by accusing yours in Christ of inflating the good that can be gained from game. They claim I overlook some very basic HBD (human biodiversity)-approved limitations imposed on men by immutable biological factors outside the reach of self-improvement efforts.

Oh, really?

What do they think I’m running here? An archipelago of pretty lies? It’s time to set the record straight about what exactly game can accomplish for the man who wants more choice in women. And what better way to do so than through the use of a handy chart?

If you are:                      then tight game will bring you this:
an omega dreg              an improvement from involuntary lifelong celibacy
to a couple bangs per year with 2s and under.

a lesser beta                a few bangs per year with non-obese 4s and 5s and
the freedom to delay marriage to a tubby plain jane
for a couple of years while still fruitfully playing the field.

a garden variety          an end to month-long dry spells, the exquisite pleasure
provider beta               of occasional sex with a girl above the threshold of
genuine attractiveness (7), and a fiscal windfall from
having gained the ability to bed women without
spending godawful sums of money on them.

a greater beta              double digit lifetime partners, one “8” girlfriend at least
ten years younger, and an ability to consistently get sex
by the third date and blowjobs on the regular. bonus:
you can reject cougars with impunity.

a lesser alpha              triple digit lifetime partners, one “9” short-term girlfriend,
one threesome, and one multiple concurrent relationship
with a 7 and an 8.

a natural alpha            300 lifetime partners (should you choose to accept this
mission), multiple threesomes and orgies, long term
unmarried loving relationships with 8s and above,
and the freedom to hit (deserving) women
without worrying they will leave you or call the police.

a super alpha               the world is your harem.


The dreg to super alpha continuum represents categories of men whose corresponding dating market value traits have been averaged for each group. For instance, a lesser beta could be a very short man with a middling income and dull personality, or a normal height unemployed man with no money and decent looks who has crippling approach anxiety and horrible fashion sense. Similarly, a lesser alpha could represent a tall man with good looks and above average income, but possessing some geeky personality quirk holding him back from reaching his full potential with women. An omega is a man whose product is unwanted by any buyer. Unlike the economic market, the sexual market is a zero sum game, so some unfortunate souls at the far left of the bell curve will be unable to find a buyer of their product. In fact, omegas will have to pay for the privilege of dumping their wretched products on the market.

As I’ve written before, what men like in women is simple. In descending order of importance, here are the female attractiveness traits that men desire in women:

Sexual eagerness.

In descending order of importance, here are the male attractiveness traits that women desire in men:

Psychosocial dominance (game).
High status/fame.
Personality (passion/charisma/humor).
Good looks/height/muscularity.
Sexual prowess.

A man along the alpha-beta-omega axis will exhibit the above traits in varying degrees of magnitude. The more of each attractiveness trait a man possesses, especially of those traits at the top of the pyramid that most attract women, the greater in intensity, amount, and quality of female attention he will fetch. A super alpha is a man who has maxed out in each category of attractiveness. An omega is a man who possesses little to none of these traits. A typical beta provider is likely a man who is low in the top four traits, average in looks and smarts, high in dependability, and low in sexual prowess.

Using girlish and pretentiously wonky Will Wilkinson as an example, he would score thusly:

Psychosocial dominance: Not enough information. He could very well be an alpha in his dealings with girlfriends.
High status/fame: High. He has fame within his tardlike liberdroid circle of equalist boilerplaters. Every male endeavor (except video gaming) has female groupies.
Personality: Average. He loses points for feminine demeanor and unmanly vocal skills, but gains points for passion.
Wealth: Assuming his income status is solidly SWPL, he’d be at the high end of this category.
Looks: Average. Feeble muscularity counterbalanced by boy band/art fag face.
Cleverness: High. He should thank his libertarian god for blessing him with a high (but uselessly applied) IQ.
Dependability: Not enough information. But he has the face of a sneaky fucker, and he’s still unmarried in his 30s (which I approve of), so I’m going with low.
Sexual prowess: Not enough information (thank god). Could be a limp noodle, could be a tantric dynamo.

If very low = 1, low = 3, average = 5, high = 7, very high = 9, and godlike = 10, and weighting toward the top four character traits, we can calculate a rough sexual market value score for Will Wilkinson:


Will Wilkinson is a greater beta.

Attracts girls in the 6-8 range, doesn’t need to turn off lights to enjoy sex, once got a BJ in an alley, his half-Asian girlfriend will cry if he proposes to her, has accumulated 5-15 partners (plus one very pretty boy).

If Wilkinson scores high on psychosocial dominance and sexual prowess, he would bump up to a lesser alpha. Rarefied company indeed, Will! As it stands, his ineffectual bloviating about relationship exactness and complementarity to the contrary notwithstanding, Will perfectly obeyed the biomechanical law of the sexual market and cashed in his market value chips for a cute, slender chick who ranks about a 7.5 on the female dating market value scale (10 being Monica Bellucci in her prime).

Of course, Wilkinson, like most purveyors of palatable lies, does not believe in game, or even in the primacy of the sexual market (his type are liable to sneer “reductionist!” whenever confronted with the reality of humanity’s base animal nature and their enslavement to it). Why, if only the entire left hand side of the male curve would just get a grad degree and an enlightened attitude toward women, they too could enjoy the fruits of cute half-Asian girls!

The great majority of men are not genetically capable of getting grad school degrees, but they are capable of learning some rudimentary game. Concepts like negs, social proof, qualfication, compliance, and body language. And in the winner-take-all seduction sweepstakes, all else equal, an uneducated man wielding tight game will beat a game-eschewing educated man waving a diploma 99 times out of 100. Bet on it.

Again, using the example of Will Wilkinson I outlined above, we can roughly deduce what a man of his market value — greater beta — can accomplish with knowledge of game and assiduous application of it in the field. If Will is willing to shed his preconceptions and start reading up on all the free seduction material now available on the internet, plus find himself a mentor who could correct him when he fucks up in set, he could enjoy a lifestyle that includes dating and fucking girls even younger and cuter than his current girlfriend, and put off marriage indefinitely for the same benefits found within long term loving relationships with girls who, because they are so enamored of him, won’t pressure him for an expensive princess wedding.

Game is not a skeleton key that will open every locked pussy. It, like most human improvement projects, has its limitations; a 5′ 2″ ugly, dull, 60 year old factory line worker living in a rancid basement hovel is not going to go from celibacy to boffing supermodels no matter how advanced his game. But game’s limitations are much farther out than most men realize. That ugly, short, boring old guy won’t bang supermodels with game, but he will discover a world of fuckathon fun among 45 year old divorcees of mediocre attractiveness.

As game, or in weightier parlance, psychosocial dominance, sits at the pinnacle of male character traits that women find attractive, a man will get more bang for his social investment buck by learning game than he would by working hard at improving himself on more conventional metrics such as career advancement, wealth generation, educational attainment, or material acquisition. He should do all those things to the best of his ability, of course, but if he could only choose one path to pussy, I would counsel him to learn the science of seduction. A grad school degree requires an additional 6-7 years of commitment after high school plus crushing debt; career advancement requires years of kissing ass and working late; wealth generation requires a lifetime of prudent financial management; material acquisitions require hard-earned money and their effectiveness at attracting and keeping pussy is questionable.

But game, the beautiful drama, needs only six months to one year of study and practical application before a man will reap the rewards of tingly ginas. When you are running game, you are saying powerful things, you are behaving powerfully. And when you behave powerfully, you really are powerful. Game is power. And it all rests on one very simple, very true, premise:

Women are mostly the same in what they find attractive in men.

And the male trait they love the most? Dominance.

Weep unfathomable tears of bitterness, equalist shits. Weep ‘em good.


Comments are closed.