616
617

Red Pill TheoryHinge data: top 10% of men get 60% of all likes, bottom 50% get 4.3% (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 2Derek1382

That the sexual marketplace is an absolutely brutal place for men is no mystery, but it is still impressive to see the numeric data confirming it. Aviv Goldgeier, an engineer at dating app Hinge, presented the likes distribution as such, but I find that table to be poorly readable, so I re-calculated the values in a way that's more clear:

Percentile range Likes shares
Top 1% 16.4%
Top 2%-5% 24.7%
Top 6%-10% 16.9%
Top 11%-50% 37.7%
Bottom 50% 4.3%

If this doesn't look too bad to you, consider that each bracket is several times the size of the preceding one: the 2%-5% range gets a higher share of likes than the 1%, but they spread that share over 4 times as many men. If we normalize for the size of each bracket, here's how the distribution looks:

Percentile range Normalized likes score
Top 1% 16.4
Top 2%-5% 6.2
Top 6%-10% 4.2
Top 11%-50% 0.9
Bottom 50% 0.09

A top 1% Chad gets 70 times as many likes a bottom 50% man. Of the top 11%-50% bracket, I have little doubt that with more granular data we'd see most of their likes going to the top 11%-20% of men; in fact, I'd strongly suspect we'd get exactly a classic 80-20 Pareto distribution. And of the 4.3% that goes to the bottom 50%, I don't doubt many are bots and most of the remainder go to the top percentiles of that bottom 50%.


[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 276 points277 points  (49 children)

From the article:

The reason for this gender disparity is probably not that women are more appearance-focused than men. The most likely explanation is that women, who are generally less likely to initiate contact, have a higher threshold when they do so. For many women, though certainly not all, if they are going to break with gender norms, it is only going to be for a really attractive guy.

This is bullshit, because this is "likes", not initiation.

The real factors are that women only go for top top men when they want casual sex. Partly because they're hypergamous (got to have the best), partly because they can afford this strategy (the demand for casual sex is much much higher on the male side).

The result is that Men will click like on all women they're prepared to fuck. Women click on top men because they can, and they still get hard dick. The effort is negative for women (validation and dates paid for), while the cost is much higher for men (texting, saying the right thing, paying for dates if you're stupid, rejection).

So our mediocre HB6 girl clicks on Chads until she gets fucked, while Billy Beta has to click through hundreds of girls to hope to get a response.

[–]2Derek1382[S] 67 points68 points  (4 children)

Yeah, I avoided discussing the data on women because it's useless without a volume comparison. The distribution is flatter but still unequal, sure, but what does that mean in practice? we know from ample data that ugly men can go forever without a single like, whereas female profiles are likely to get likes from real humans even just because of the dudes swiping right on everyone. And of those dudes, I guarantee some are willing to fuck even if she looks like an orc.

[–]dec_cutter 29 points30 points  (1 child)

Actually the reason women's activity is more top-heavy than men's is because women are more selective.

1, evolutionary reasons

2, the simple fact that a hot guy will actually 'slum' and fuck all sorts of chicks, even 100 in on week if he desired to. So the 'harem' strategy actually results in these chicks thinking they got a shot.

3, legions of doting chodes have inflated her own sense of pussy power

[–]2Derek1382[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Actually the reason women's activity is more top-heavy than men's is because women are more selective.

I said nothing about why women are more selective, my reply is on why I'm not doing a comparison between men's and women's like distributions.

[–]casemodsalt 31 points32 points  (33 children)

I literally just spam the heart button till I run out and I rarely get any matches. Then they usually don't respond if we do match, if they are what I call cute.

The ugly ones message me first. Ugh..

[–]JTPish 51 points52 points  (10 children)

That's a very bad idea since it ruins your elo score. Best to swipe left on the undesirables.

[–]Rollo_Mayhem3 13 points14 points  (7 children)

can someone explain what practical impact the elo scores has.

I usually take my time and I am very selective. Then I read somewhere that it is more efficient to simply swipe right and then select from those that match with you. So I started doing that.

While I do get some matches, the matches that I actually meet, almost always have converted into lays same day/night. So from that limited perspective online dating has been hugely successful for me. Of course, I am not meeting girls every week but when I do, it works.

[–]corsega 21 points22 points  (5 children)

If your Elo score is low, your profile won't be seen by hotter girls, and you'll be shown uglier girls in your stack in general.

I've verified this by resetting a profile and autoswiping, I received only 9 matches in a week that I considered bangable, meanwhile I get around 30 bangable matches if I manually swipe (around a 60% swipe right percentage).

[–]Profdiddy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Any links to confirm this please?

[–]corsega 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't have any specific links, you'll have to trust my word and that I run a blog that is pretty analytical about online game.

[–]Rollo_Mayhem3 0 points1 point  (1 child)

can I increase my elo by reverting back to swiping with more discretion?

[–]corsega 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't tested that yet, so not sure. At this point I don't think it makes sense to spend time testing as we know that Elo is trashed with constant right swiping, so it's better to just reset and recreate the account.

Something I do intend to test is if randomly swiping 60% of girls still trashes your Elo.

[–]zephyrprime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't get shown to women. There are basically 10 men to 1 chick on tinder and the men look at 10x as many profiles. So it's easy to for a single man to not show up on ANY chicks profiles and despite doing this Tinder will never have a shortage of men to show women. If you aren't even getting matches with bots and gold diggers, you know your profile isn't being shown to anyone.

[–]Snoopy_Doggy 34 points35 points  (21 children)

Online dating doesn't work for most men, even if you're attractive and have a nice profile photo it's a huge scam and waste of time. In person works best. Actually Facebook works out too sometimes, because they at least know who you are and what you do.

[–]ioncehadsexinapool 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Friends have friends has by far been the most effective for me. Or befriend an uggo on tinder and invade her social circle

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 26 points27 points  (14 children)

I'm tall and attractive. Started using tinder 2-weeks ago. Gotten over 50+ matches from attractive women since. But matches don't mean shit. More than half of them don't even respond (just looking for validation). Of the half that do, a portion stop mid convo (even the ones they initiated). Some unmatch mid-convo for no reason. Many end up living where logistics is bad, or don't have cars. Got 2 bangs from the same girl last week. Got a few numbers. I think that as long as I can continue the one new girl bang a week, it's worth it. 1/week from just swiping is 52 a year. Pretty g. I'll take it. It's my only portal to the 18-22 year olds for now. Haven't used other apps though.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (3 children)

It's my only portal to the 18-22 year olds for now.

Guessing you're in your 40's too....I cut my Facebook age in half, while on Tinder I just hide the fake age. Brand new pics, gray hair not dyed out. I get matches, haven't been mercilessly escalating (new year, though).

What's your approach?

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Some bad boy pics. Shirtless pics in a social setting. I'm late to the game though. Women are desensitized to it now. I'm sure I'd slay in it's infancy.

But your main concern, how to be around the 18-22 year olds, is a much deeper question than you realize. It's a proximity issue that is built in the way society is structured by age and class system. I had a long, well-received comment that discussed that a few months ago, but I'm still working on the post version. I'd rather do that and answer it in full. It's a big problem.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm looking forward to it.

I had a splendid, 4.5 year relationship with a girl who was 19 when we got together....I was 39. It was random as hell, I was a non-traditional student, so we met in college.

I'm now a professional so the college angle is clearly in the past. I do martial arts as well as hiking/climbing/backpacking, all stuff that kind of caters to a younger crowd.

It's like....yeah, women my age are post Wall, but there's more to it than that, you know? I'm somewhat useless to women our age. I don't have kids, I don't want kids or anything to do with kids, my life revolves around fitness, work, and adventuring. I've thought about whoring myself out to rich older women while banging young ones, but that's a different story.

Anyway.....my highest rated comment here had to do with having a young smokeshow on my arm. Younger women had no problem with it. Put together young men didn't bat an eye. Loser young men and women over 30 hated it. Old men fucking loved it, shot me grins and even thumbs up on a regular basis.

I've chewed some on the proximity angle. I've deliberately crafted my lifestyle to be much more a dude in his late 20's than mid 40's....but I don't act like a kid, that would be stupid, my girl was with me because I wasn't a kid. You're right, it's a big problem.

I don't know how it ties into proximity, but the assumption that someone is being manipulated really sets my blood to boil. Does it happen? Sure. But in this case, there was no manipulation. She won. She went from an awkward girl coming out of a cult (yes I consider conservative Judaism a cult) to a really wonderful and well loved girl......guys my age usually spend $200 to fuck a girl like her, so I saved what $80,000? Seriously, though, there's all the societal bullshit going on, then there is me recently going out to dinner with this girl's father because we're quite fond of each other......trust me, it's not because I fucked his young daughter over (or was played to be a sucker myself).

[–]domoli 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A good post on this would be well appreciated, standing by...

[–]smirk_addict 2 points3 points  (7 children)

I like that strategy. I just want consistent sex from attractive women. FWBs and what not. My friend has had similar experiences as you. Tall, fit, good looking dude. He got hella matches and super likes on tinder but little to no result. Most girls just wanted to talk. He told me in the months he used it he must’ve banged like 2 or 3 girls. But his Facebook? He was murdering it there.

[–]1TRUEKING 1 point2 points  (6 children)

what do you mean by his facebook? do you randomly dm a girl on facebook to hookup? I feel like instagram would be better right? I find it mad weird to use facebook for that because that's not the intention of the facebook app whereas tinder, everyone knows the goal is to hookup

[–]smirk_addict -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

It’s more to it than that. But since you find it weird I won’t go into detail. Don’t want to make you more uncomfortable.

[–]1TRUEKING 1 point2 points  (0 children)

well i find it weird, but im also curious and interested to what he does haha

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[removed]

    [–]Luckyluke23 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    had tinder become a joke of the online dating world? like... I swear it's ONLY used for validation.

    edit: you seem like a guy who could use ALL the dating apps. could you use some diffrent ones and write up a report on which are good and which aren't? that would be cool. I mean you could do it while you take a shit

    [–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    It's because the online dating app has long peaked. In it's infancy, many a dude were slaying.

    For online dating, there is but one man you must reference here Online Dating Prophet Omlalahammed. He is in the askTRP sidebar "Everything Omlala has were written".

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    If you are a high status man, you can have success in both online and in person approaching. The more of your status you derive from your appearance, the more relative success you will have online vs in person. I see no reason why single men should not have online dating apps though. Online and in person approaching are not mutually exclusive. You can spend 10 minutes a day on tinder and greatly increase your success with women. Break out the app while you are taking a dump in the morning, riding the train home from work, or waiting for your buddy to come over before you go to the bars.

    [–]Snoopy_Doggy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Diversify your portfolio, good plan.

    [–]chemicalprogrammer 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    Men want sex more than women, therefore women get to be more choosy. Simple supply and demand + biology.

    [–]TheReformist94 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    No,women want sex as much as men,just not with most men

    [–]CreatedItJust2Saythi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Female inferiority needs to be picky. Male superiority is the promiscuous party.

    Find a single blog out there about how sexy are fat men, old men, male amputees, etc, which is run by a woman and I'm turning blue pill

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    This is bullshit, because this is "likes", not initiation.

    Hinge requires messages to be sent with likes.

    Just tried it again, I'm retarded.

    [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    Ah, ok.

    Are these initiations or replies?

    Given the skewed nature of online dating (vastly more male initiation than female), I'm surprised it's not even more skewed than it is.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Hinge basically by design blurs the line between likes and initiation. When you like a profile it has to be a profile pic or part of the bio. I was under the impression that likes have to be sent with a message, but doesn't appear to be the case.

    They're still likes, but they frame it as a "initiate with this part of the profile" thing, in an effort to get rid of binge swiping.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Consider correcting your earlier comment so 100 more people aren't misinformed

      Look again at the comment I replied to, you'll see it has been corrected and that mine stands as valid.

      Consider deleting your comment, seeing as it is you that is in the wrong. You wouldn't like to be a hypocrite would you?

      [–]2Dmva100 102 points103 points  (10 children)

      You are either her cock, wallet, or handkerchief. Even if you have what it takes to be 'Mr right' and be all 3, dont.

      [–]Werewolf35b 13 points14 points  (7 children)

      What is a "hankerchief" in this context,?

      [–]DragonBornX45 79 points80 points  (1 child)

      My guess is it's a "shoulder to cry on" analogy

      [–]Heart_of_a_Lion0414 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      Fuck. I'm screenshotting this so I can remember to use this in the future.

      [–]Newbosterone 29 points30 points  (0 children)

      Confirming this from OkCupid:

      Women rated an incredible 80% of men as below median.

      [–]Junted 58 points59 points  (21 children)

      The solution, (if seen as an issue):

      1. Build something and yourself that is top 10% of men worthy.
      2. Don't invest time in viewing the lives of the 10% until you emerge into that bracket.
      3. Keep building.

      This is only allowed to bother you if you've tried vigorously to achieve it. Otherwise, accept the data and get back to whatever you were doing that a top 10% man wouldn't be.

      [–]2Derek1382[S] 23 points24 points  (19 children)

      if seen as an issue

      Here's how I see it:

      • the vast majority of men are hardship- and conflict-averse lazy assholes who go through life along the path of least resistance; that they're not being rewarded by online dating is not a problem and might arguably be a good thing

      • a power law distribution like this doesn't arise out of any artificial mechanism, but something much deeper; it's completely pointless to be upset at it, might as well be upset that gravity doesn't let you fly like superman

      If you have any sort of self-respect, what you do for your body, mind and social life will be enough to easily put you in the top 20%, and with a little more dedicated effort you can get into the top 10%.It's not an issue on a moral nor on a practical level.

      [–]Wolveryn 15 points16 points  (11 children)

      True but also don’t be ugly more importantly

      [–]2Derek1382[S] 27 points28 points  (7 children)

      If your facial structure is blackops2cel-tier then yeah, you're shit out of luck. However there's a shit ton of guys who insist they're genetically ugly as an excuse not to better themselves, because it's easier and more comforting to wallow in self-pity than to make something of themselves.

      [–]Wolveryn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Maybe you’re right but the idea of not bettering yourself if you have the opportunity disgusts me to the point of disbelief

      [–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (3 children)

      Yah ugly fit dudes can still smash.

      [–]Omnibrad 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      Harvey Weinstein got his dick sucked by women much prettier than anything your ugly fat self has ever porked.

      [–]NitricTV 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      He has much more money & power than him too...

      [–]dongus88 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      Looks at the face gains pictures on the progress pictures subreddit. Lots of people's faces drastically change as they lose weight and get in shape

      [–]The_Real_Cannaman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      But what if u look ugly in face even when low bf%? Check-mate

      [–]Damien_Scott 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Mine certainly did. I'm pretty damn hot now on a good day. I even catch gym bunnies looking at me even though I'm not where I would like to be yet.

      [–]Hyperian 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      Funny how if it was easy or even fesible to get into the top 10% it wouldn't be the 10%.

      It's like people that say just work harder and you'll not be poor.

      [–]dongus88 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

      It's possible but not easy. It will be very hard and take years. And if you worked SMARTER you wouldn't be poor

      [–]Fur_hat_linux 1 point2 points  (4 children)

      easily? why do you say that? if getting into top 20% was easy, don't you think everyone would be doing it?

      [–]2Derek1382[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

      if getting into top 20% was easy, don't you think everyone would be doing it?

      Evidence that humans don't necessarily do easy things to improve their lives is all around us.

      Not being a fatass is easy, just control your eating. We even have calories printed on most food, by law.

      Not getting into loads of consumer debt is easy, just spend within your means. We have apps for that too.

      But most people don't. Traditional wisdom has it that it's because most people behave like herbivores with low time preference, but I think the simpler truth is that most people don't actually want those easy-to-achieve things that they fail to work for. Most people don't want to leave their comfort zone of being fat and uncontrolled. They like it there.

      [–]Fur_hat_linux 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Not being a fatass is easy, just control your eating. We even have calories printed on most food, by law.

      Being skinny is easy and i find is the norm amongst the 18-30 crowd (at least at my uni). getting into 'jacked' territory is hard.

      Not getting into loads of consumer debt is easy, just spend within your means. We have apps for that too.

      No debt is easy too - like you said don't spend above your means. getting 7 figures is hard.

      What you are saying is a baseline, imo. one should strive for more.

      [–]The_Real_Cannaman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Bs, being muscular doesn't do shit.

      [–]Augustuscrassus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Word. However for dating apps looks are going to play a much larger role.

      [–]1Revo_Luzione 91 points92 points  (53 children)

      Getting professional pictures makes a big, big difference. If you're reasonably fit, have a decent face, and look your biological age or younger, professional photos can easily get you into the top 5%. I've seen it firsthand. A good buddy of mine went from getting no matches on Tinder, to getting many matches a week, simply by hiring a professional photographer.

      [–]2Derek1382[S] 82 points83 points  (20 children)

      If you're reasonably fit

      That alone will put you in the top 30%, as 70% of men are medically overweight, with 40% being medically obese: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm

      It's really not any kind of enormous effort to be a top 10% man. All it takes is a baseline of self-respect, which says something about how low the bar is set.

      [–]foot_odor 59 points60 points  (3 children)

      I've checked the study in the pdf. The numbers are frightening for both genders. The worse category is black females with more than 80% of them being overweight or obese.

      [–]frrunkis 48 points49 points  (1 child)

      What, are you just afraid of a real woman?

      [–]Reformed65 24 points25 points  (0 children)

      snaps finger ah-huh that boy gonna need a real woman.

      [–]GuitarHero07 23 points24 points  (3 children)

      Remember though, the population on dating apps is not representative of the population at large. For starters, you’re going to find a much younger demographic (mostly 18-35). The percentage of obese individuals in this demographic is considerably less than the population at large (although it is still shockingly high in the US and many other developed countries). Also, there is going to be a selection bias; not everyone is going to be on Tinder, Bumble etc.

      [–]2Derek1382[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      Oh of course, if we wanted to calculate the real percentages it would get more complicated. But here's the thing: the distributions for weight, muscle mass, grooming habits etc are still so lopsided that it doesn't really matter. Even a first-order imprecise estimate will tell you the truth: being in the top percentile brackets for attractiveness is positively easy, because the bar is set so low.

      [–]Momo_dollar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      I agree but also remember, as pointed out the demographics on dating apps is younger PLUS the guys that join and stay are not likely to be obese or out of shape. Most men are not delusional a fat guy already knows he isn’t made for dating apps, the guys that stay and fail are guys who think they have a chance probably because in real life they do ok. But then they get onto dating apps and it’s a whole different ball game.

      [–]GuitarHero07 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      In most major cities the competition is going to be a lot stiffer than you seem to be presenting it. That’s not to be defeatist; it is possible to get decent tail on a dating app if you are decent looking (i.e. fit, well dressed, well groomed with good pics etc.).

      However there are plenty of 18-35 men on dating apps in any major city who are fit, well-dressed, well-groomed, have game and good pics etc. If you want to get a true idea of your competition, go to a popular nightlife or dining area in your city. I guarantee you will find plenty of guys who meet the aforementioned criteria.

      Also keep in mind that the bar is set very low for women as well. A large percentage of the female population is obese or has other unattractive traits. Don’t kid yourself, the competition for the most attractive women (7s and above) will always be tough.

      [–]1Revo_Luzione 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      It's really not any kind of enormous effort to be a top 10% man.

      You're correct. Yet the fact that the top 10% is the top 10%, and not the top 50%, is instructive.

      90% of people think they are above-average drivers. That means 40% have un-earned self-image inflation.

      In reality, improvement is hard. Human nature is capricious, evolution has programmed humans to be efficient (read: lazy). True warrior spirit is rare, thus its value.

      Thus, the top 10% is the top 10% for a reason, because if everyone could get there, it wouldn't be the top 10%. Circular logic, but this is why participation trophies are harmful, and competition & thumotic spirit is to be encouraged, stimulated, and rewarded.

      [–]frankwashere44 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      That alone will put you in the top 30%, as 70% of men are medically overweight, with 40% being medically obese: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm

      You haven't controlled more precisely for age. 70% of men in their 20s are not overweight. Far from it.

      [–]LeftHookTKD 3 points4 points  (3 children)

      That alone will put you in the top 30%, as 70% of men are medically overweight, with 40% being medically obese:

      What about the undeweight guys? That's not attractive or fit either. Being in good shape is probably top 25% off the bat.

      [–]2Derek1382[S] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

      What about the undeweight guys?

      1.4% prevalence among American adults, not a comparable problem hence why I omitted them from that first-order analysis.

      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      1.4% prevalence among American adults

      Good Lord, stat of the year.

      [–]dereko33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The thing is, bmi and weight alone does not tell the story of body fat, muscle, and actual sex appeal athletic look.

      [–]TheReformist94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      No,it won't.not if you don't have a good face.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I suggest you make a fake account as a female, and see who the guys you're competing with actually look like.

        I'm guessing that's a bad idea.

        [–]smirk_addict 9 points10 points  (2 children)

        I really need to do this but I want to cut more weight first. Especially after the holidays. I talked about this with a female friend and it was fulll of red pill truths. At first she said she thinks guys that do that are try hard. Then later she says she wants to be the one to take the pics. Women by design try to discourage men in the sexual market place. Then to have some type of power over me she offered to take the pics. That way she could take credit for my success or tell me it’s because of my looks or try hard pics if I don’t get more matches.

        [–]1Revo_Luzione 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        After a while, it becomes obvious when women are saying things to a guy to discourage him from increasing his SMV. Call it the Red Pill of Relative Female SMV Arbitrage by Sabotage. Welcome to one of those experiences. There will be more.

        [–]LuvBeer 8 points9 points  (15 children)

        I see how this intuitively makes sense, but if you look at the photos of females aged 18-22, they are basically the opposite of what most people associate with professional photos (the cool kids' photos typically involve: an ambiguous subject, shitty image quality, awkward expressions, dynamic "poses"). Do you think females in this age bracket still go for professional pics? I would bet more on taking photos that resemble their own or perhaps professional but which look convincingly non-professional.

        [–]2Derek1382[S] 21 points22 points  (6 children)

        I see how this intuitively makes sense, but if you look at the photos of females aged 18-22, they are basically the opposite of what most people associate with professional photos

        Agreed, however there's still an important difference: while women's photos are almost never professional-grade (nor attempting to be), they're almost universally studied.

        With dudes, you'll see many if not most profiles filled with lazy-ass selfies, clearly uploaded straight from the gallery. Dudes often show their weak spots by pure laziness or inability to understand what they are and that they should hide them.

        With women, you'll mostly see well-posed selfies that have clearly been picked among several hundred and altered through cosmetic and other filters. You'll almost never see a girl's photos showcasing weak spots.

        Very few people on either side have real professional-quality photographs, but women on average put in a much better effort.

        [–]LuvBeer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        while women's photos are almost never professional-grade (nor attempting to be), they're almost universally studied.

        Absolutely. Also who's to say a woman who posts edgy photos herself won't go for professional photos of a guy? I'm always bowled over at the corny shit women go for instead of my honest, slightly more vulnerable humor/thoughts.

        [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

        You are right.

        No girls except Ukrainian take professional photos for their online dating profiles.

        [–]casemodsalt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        All the professional looking photos of women I assume are spambots. Especially with no info in profile.

        [–]1Revo_Luzione 5 points6 points  (3 children)

        What most females do with their own photos has nothing to do with what they respond to in male photos. A small portion of women do have pro photos, and they're not coincidentally top SMV women.

        The rest might be using goofy photos as virtue signaling, but most women would not turn down a professional photographer's offer of free photos, and would absolutely use them on social media and dating sites.

        So with that in mind, would you want photos that resemble theirs? Mirroring is a tactic, not a strategy. Think strategically.

        [–]truedemocracy3 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        Women have much more pictures to choose from and are much better at taking pics than men

        [–]itsjustsimon- 5 points6 points  (10 children)

        professional photos can easily get you into the top 5%

        Sorry guys but how the fuck does professional photos make you 5%? You're delusional. After matches, you still need to meet this "leads" in real life.

        [–]1Revo_Luzione 7 points8 points  (2 children)

        After matches, you still need to meet this "leads" in real life.

        Thanks, Captain Obvious. We were talking about top 5% in terms of right-swipes, not overall SMV. Geez. Context, bruh. Edit: It should be obvious that a right swipe is just the beginning. Looks do not equal game.

        [–]itsjustsimon- -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

        Oh I see, your "phone game" is doing it.

        If you're ugly, professional photos will only make it more clearly that you're ugly. But do you really believe just pro photos will make you top 5 in the group of 100 guys all horny to fuck? Geez.

        [–]1Revo_Luzione -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        You can see the answer in the data. If a guy went from getting zero matches, ever, or only rarely, to getting quite a few a week, then yes, absolutely. Like it says in the post title, the top ten percent get 60% of the attention. So just be in the top half of that. Even an ugly man who isn 't fat, who gets good professional photos with decent attire, yes, he's got a good chance to be in the top 5% in his area. My post said be decently fit, and get pro photos. A pro is going to help you dress properly for good photos.

        Feel free to try it & verify for yourself rather than being so salty.

        [–]Fedor_Gavnyukov 8 points9 points  (3 children)

        because all these bitches don't look like their pictures either

        [–]itsjustsimon- 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        That's why Tinder is bullshit. If she looks like 9 on Tinder, she's probably 6 at best.

        [–]1Revo_Luzione 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Yeah, you bet. Life experience: I live in a relatively small city. Under 250K. I have a great memory for faces, and I've seen at least 8-10 women in real life that I've seen on some dating app. I've also seen 3-4 on the app that I know personally. With only one exception, they all looked way better on the app. For some reason, one of the more attractive women I know played down her hotness with more plain pictures--a weird exception that proves the rule.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Sorry guys but how the fuck does professional photos make you 5%? You're delusional. After matches, you still need to meet this "leads" in real life.

        Haha more importantly... are you fucking kidding me? Professional photos? First of all, most of these apps link to your Facebook, so aren't people you know going to think it's a little strange when you start posting your model photos to Facebook? Second of all, who doesn't have a single good pic on their Facebook where they look good? Just pick that one as your profile, and make sure you also add one in where you are with a big mixed group of guys and girls, all smiling and just having a grand old time so you can show her how fucking fun and happy and just plain awesome you are.

        In related news, yes, girls are in fact so stupid that they think if you look cool in one picture on your tinder account you that you must actually be a cool guy with lots of friends! I don't know why more societies in the past haven't thought of giving women the vote and pushing them into leadership positions. What could possibly go wrong?!

        [–]corsega 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        First of all, most of these apps link to your Facebook, so aren't people you know going to think it's a little strange when you start posting your model photos to Facebook?

        They only use Facebook for signing in. Your Facebook friends never see your photos.

        [–]Shakydrummer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I remember a few months ago when I was seeing a concert and was just people watching. The amount of run of the mill average dudes that are not in shape is just jarring. Those statistics don't surprise me at all.

        [–]casemodsalt 46 points47 points  (17 children)

        My irl game is pretty solid. Seems much easier than tinder.

        I'm not gonna put that much effort into some dumb app just so women can have a better overall quality of selection. They're entitled and have it easy enough already.

        [–]Wolveryn 7 points8 points  (13 children)

        Tinder gives men more power now, and you don’t even realise.

        If you optimise your profile and you understand why pick up techniques work, it becomes almost too easy to get laid on tinder

        [–]Rollo_Mayhem3 22 points23 points  (2 children)

        On new years, the amount of women who contacted me exploded.."hey, going out for new years??" "Any big pans tonight??" Amazing how they all turn into whores that one night...I used the opportunity to set them up for later..

        [–]zephyrprime 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        I went hard on new years and didn't get more matches than on a normal day

        [–]Rollo_Mayhem3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        all i know is that on NYE, I was getting many matches and quick contacts by the girls...now I am getting a lot more matches than ever before. The only variable is that I used photos that have me at top 20% on photofeeler. But as it turns out, most photos that I thought were good, I was already using. SO I do not think that is a variable.

        [–]casemodsalt 5 points6 points  (5 children)

        How do I optimize my profile?

        [–]Rollo_Mayhem3 17 points18 points  (2 children)

        there was post about this on askTRP... short of it is:

        Professional photos or at least high quality photos that show several angles to your personality and body... (pic with friends, pic doing some activity, pic with no shirt but not a selfie, pic that should show your status (like somewhere you live, clothing, or area of town)...

        Only swipe within immediate area that you are willing to travel for date. I would add probably within city limits or a relatively affordable cab ride (major metro area). Save super likes for girls you perceive to be a point or two higher than your SMV...

        information in your profile should be just enough to catch their attention and show that you are normal...emphasis positive like if you are tall put your height, it you have a college degree, say "college educated" although it usually comes up what school you went to in the profile taken from FB.

        that's just a start

        [–]somebullshitrp 4 points5 points  (3 children)

        Tinder gives men more power now, and you don’t even realise.

        I question this... Can you explain how that is?

        [–]Bisuboy 8 points9 points  (2 children)

        If you look good, you can have sex for free just by writing a few texts on a simple app

        [–]somebullshitrp 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        If you look good, you can have sex for free just by writing a few texts on a simple app

        Obviously, but that's not what he said. The implication was that tinder somehow gives guys more power.

        Show me examples of men pulling women as hot, or hotter, than themselves from online dating apps and I'll agree. Otherwise, where's the power?

        Guys, even good looking guys, are still at a disadvantage online vs. in person.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        It's just another avenue to get what you want. No one says you have to stop approaching in person. And if you think approaching in person is easy, then this should be like taking candy from a baby for you. I found tinder to be so easy that the biggest problem was that I felt my in person skills were actually atrophying.

        [–]vicious_armbar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Glad IRL works well for you. For many men online dating is more efficient. Online dating can be a good aggregator for men who don't live in large cities. You get to quickly hit on a ton of women who are geographically disbursed. The downside is that unlike opening in real life there are no barriers to entry. So you have to be better than most of the other guys on there. Which isn't difficult. Around 90% of the openers being sent to women are "hi", or the same copy and paste spams from some pua website that are sent multiple times a day.

        [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        From the headline alone, you can see that the author is grasping at the truth of the matter, but he can't quite get past his programming to accurately view reality. "These statistics show why it’s so hard to be an average man on dating apps"

        Those last three words, "on dating apps" are crucial. The fact of the matter is that title should have excluded those last three words because the dating apps are actually a fairly good representation of the distribution in reality. Unrestrained female hypergamy, access to resources and employment, and no fault divorce mean that these statistics represent the actual reality that a typical man faces in the dating game, both approaching in regular life and online.

        Restriction of female sexuality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the development of advanced and stable societies.

        [–]Augustuscrassus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        That is true and it isn't. I have far more success with better looking women in real life than on tinder. I'm pretty good looking but I can't take a good photo to save my life. I guess I'm not really average but I'm not top 20% either.

        I met my main plate off tinder: HB7. I told her that when I picked her up I hoped she looked like her tinder profile (she did). She told me that she was glad because I am MUCH hotter in person. I've had other girls tell me they wouldn't have swiped right if they hadn't met me in person beforehand.

        Jacking myself off aside, online dating just isn't for everyone.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

        [–]antariusz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Not forever. At some point you have to say, well it took me 3 weeks, but I got laid, so tinder is now “working” for me.

        Depends on where you live though. Bigger the city, less harm comes from using it early. If you live in a small rural area, best to wait.

        [–]jewishsupremacist88 14 points15 points  (5 children)

        this is why men wind up paying for sex. who has time to go through all that BS?? if im trying to gift some eggnog its alot easier to just pay

        [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        I'm thinking the same too. I was reading a book about the Soviet Union where people had to practically hustle their way around to get anything other than bread and vodka. I'm starting to think that getting laid any other way than prostitution is just as much as a hassle.

        [–]kieran9323 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        hustle

        that's pretty much how it was, plus that "hustling" was illegal, so at the end, everyone was a criminal. If you pissed off someone who was politically involved, even at a small, very regional level, there was no problem to lock you up for some time to straighten you up. Communism in EE was v. similar to the situation in N.Korea now.

        [–]jewishsupremacist88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        tbh fam, "hobbying" as they call it is another form of dating with its own hassles. but its alot more straight forward, that's for sure.

        [–]vicious_armbar 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        That's why feminists and tradcon's fight against the legalization of prostitution so hard, and try to conflate voluntary prostitution with "human trafficking" (slavery). They desperately want to keep the price of sex high.

        [–]jewishsupremacist88 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        Yup. There is a big divide in "feminist" circles as whether or not prostitution is oppressive. The hot girls know they can sell that ass and its "empowering" and the purple haired faggots and dykes hate it because they lose their power.

        [–]binarynightmare 8 points9 points  (1 child)

        I posted a few months ago about how I suspected the SMP followed a power law, this confirms it. Thanks for taking the time to post this, refreshing to see data in this thread.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Of course it does, cuz physics.

        [–]dereko33 9 points10 points  (1 child)

        80-20 Peano distribution

        I think you mean Pareto distribution

        [–]2Derek1382[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Got my Italian mathematicians mixed up yeah

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)

        [deleted]

        [–]2mbillion 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Not sure why you're being down voted. While it's certainly a decent piece of analysis it's a fucking bubble of people looking for the cheapest most low effort no strings attached sex they can find.

        [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

        So I guess sticking your penis into a warm vagina is now considered "validation."

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        Interesting study for sure.

        Actionable advice for everyone - look how much better the top percentile of men does than the average man. Don't envy those men, become one of them. Go lift. Educate yourself. Groom yourself well. Be a badass.

        [–]Yanlii 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Lifting doesn't fix bad facial proportions man.

        [–]1PantsonFire1234 4 points5 points  (11 children)

        How do you rate top % on a dating app anyway? Some guy could be a pro at making pictures, a high status job, nice car to show off, some other lifestyle extravagances that do especially well on a dating profiles album. Yet that same guy could be a out of shape short dude with a side of autism limiting his jerkboy potential charms in real life.

        This brings us back to the point that men dominate in their preferred environments. You have the office alpha, the gym alpha and the school aplha, nowadays you have the social media alpha. But none of these guys are guaranteed to show dominance in another category. Some might have allot of things in common, like say the school environment and the gym environment. What makes you dominate in one category will help you along in the other. But in other areas one set of qualities far outweigh the other, say your top 1% social media guy. I'd say that being able to make nice pictures and having a showroom life far outweighs genetic virility and charm.

        Yet we all know what type of dude women go for to get banged hard. This is the big problem I have with social media, it only matters if you chose to participate. And even though women do invest in it and chose to believe in it. Making it any more than an after thought for when you already dominate another market is foolish.

        And dominating another market is hard.

        [–]Rod147 1 point2 points  (7 children)

        How do you rate top % on a dating app anyway?

        The 1% of male users who received the most likes and so on...

        Some get liked by 50/100, some by 25/100 and some by only 1/1000, that's how the top % are distributed.

        [–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        In this case the top are simply rated statistically according to how many likes they have. They aren't measuring the reason why any particular guy gets as many likes as he does, they are simply measuring that he does. Say they took 1000 guys: they sort them in order from the most likes received to the least likes received. Then they count down the first 10 guys who have the most likes and call them the "top 1%".

        If there was a total of 10,000 likes were given out, those guys averaged about 164 likes each. The 500 guys with the lowest number of likes averaged 1 like each.

        [–]Throwawaysteve123456 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        The only difference is they are liking if they want to fuck them or not. Men will fuck 60% of women, women will fuck 5% of men. It's pretty straight forward. If you look at shit like instagram, it's the EXACT FUCKING SAME FOR WOMEN. The top 1% of instagram women will have likely 50+% of all instagram likes. In fact, if you look at a typical 6/10 female vs a crazy popular instagram 'model' (lol), these women are receiving several thousand likes for every 1. If anything, it's more extreme for men. You're just comparing apples to oranges.

        [–]TheFoxxi 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        We see this pattern all the time. It's called the Matthew principle. In cases of meritocracy, the square root of the total population accrues half of the reward. In this case it is likes, in others it is wealth. Work hard to be top 10% in every thing you do.

        [–]1Entropy-7 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

        The math doesn't work. With a population of 100, the top 10% get half the reward. With a population of 10,000 the top 1% get half the reward.

        [–]Andgelyo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Didn’t know what hinge was, so I looked it up. Premise was that it hooks people up with mutual friends of your Facebook friends....yeahhh fuck that. I’m not trying to get my squeaky clean reputation fucked with. Back to tinder I go!

        [–]BaronIncognito 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        LOL, Chad has done it again!

        [–]APDD_Ben 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        This distribution is very common with modern society and media. It's called the Long Tail Short Head distribution.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Men (like me) who don't take full advantage ought to be sentenced to punching ourselves in the dick daily until they have 3 plates, no excuses.

        [–]Smoovemammajamma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        So you're saying there's a chance

        [–]Frenchy100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Here's for the guys who can't analyze data :

        This is only considering physical attractiveness as selection trait. On average, men are not physically attractive to begin with (also because women are not as visually stimulated as men). On the other hand, the average woman is already attractive to men. So when you ask women to choose men solely based on attractiveness, it is completely normal to see this data pop up. If you think looks are going to get you the results you want, you're mistaken. Looks only get your foot in the door. If you don't have the skills to seduce and frame, you will fail (unless you're looking for mediocre drunk sex). On the other hand, if you do have the proper frame, you will realize that you don't need looks to get your results. We all know someone who isn't particularly attractive, yet who is amazing with women. What lifting is going to get you is confidence, alpha traits, and respect from other men, but it is not going to be the cure-all to your dry spell if you haven't put in the work into game.

        [–]truedemocracy3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I would like to see these broken down further. So far top 10% of men get 58% of the likes. But 11% - 50% is a huge range for the other 37%. I bet if this follows a bell curve we see something VERY CLOSE to the 80/20 breakdown. Where if you are a guy between 20%-40% (still above average, probably solid bod, ok body, college educated) you are getting low level leftovers and if you are in the 50% median you get NOTHING.

        Would love to see similar data for women.

        [–]Saladino93 0 points1 point  (3 children)

        What is your definition of top?

        [–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        It's recursive because it is just the guys who get the most likes.

        ie: the guys who get the most likes are the guys who get the most likes.

        [–]Saladino93 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Therefore we don't have many info abiut their real SMV. It could be a guy with real low smv that is in the top 10% in this ranking(because of good self marketing for example). Not so useful for real life, although it is an intersting.

        [–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Online SMV is related to but different from SMV IRL. You can't use creative camera angles when you are face-to-face.

        [–]ChillBallin -1 points0 points  (2 children)

        I think it’s interesting that top 11-50% do get nearly 40% of likes. With deviation from sampling I think it’s fair to say this group is represented fairly. So as long as you’re top 50%(not hard considering how fucking lazy most people are) you’ll do fine, if you’re top 10% you’ll slay, and if you’re in that bottom 50% you need to hit the gym or else you’re fucked.

        [–]JYandeau -4 points-3 points  (26 children)

        Not bragging at all, but I consider myself top 10% with a 9/10 face, 8/10 body but am only 5’9.5 (fml...) & even I have trouble getting 8s+ on dating apps. I have good pictures but you can clearly see I’m not over 6 foot, which probably hinders my results. Thinking about buying some height increasing insoles specifically for pictures lmao.

        I have a Chad friend who I asked to see & use his Tinder for a day & holy fuck it actually made me sick to my stomach how easy it was for him... this guy had solid HBB9s messaging him first talking dirty, he doesn’t have to do anything, every girl I swiped instantly messaged me right after. What I would do to be in his shoes man...

        [–]BrownGummyBear 4 points5 points  (4 children)

        but am only 5'9.5

        That height is pretty much the average for men worldwide 🙄 you sound so insecure about it, buying insoles to take pictures LMAO what's next, high heels?

        [–]JYandeau -1 points0 points  (3 children)

        It’s less about insecurity & more about improving my chances on Tinder. Being taller has been proven to benefit in all aspects of life, so why not improve on it if you can? Fun fact: Taller men have been proven to make a larger salary than men below average.

        [–]Werewolf35b 6 points7 points  (1 child)

        How is that not bragging at all? Because you said "no homo" first or something?

        [–]JYandeau 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Lol I guess it’s a little bragging, but that wasen’t the point of the post at all.

        [–]Fedor_Gavnyukov -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        my homie is my height which is 5,10 and he gets the same tinder play like your friend. he also doesn't work out at all, has dad bod. i do pretty damn good on tinder but he's on another level. he also has no job and just recently got out of prison lol

        [–]LeftHookTKD -1 points0 points  (16 children)

        If your face and body are good you wouldn't have issues. Post some body pics.

        [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        So stop being the bottom of the barrel bucko and sort yourself out

        [–]2mbillion -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

        Why does this surprise anybody? It shouldn't. Just like you aren't out there looking every ugly chick either. Fix your camp if you want different results

        [–]deville05 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

        What constitutes these various brackets according to this app?

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        The amount of likes constitutes the various brackets. It's not difficult to break a population down into brackets statistically. It has nothing to do with a qualitative analysis, but rather, a purely statistical analysis.

        [–]deville05 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I was asking what kind of men are the 1% on this app? Do they look a certain way, run in similar circles, have the same kind money etc?

        [–]Sararia -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

        I'm probably gonna get blasted by incels for posting in this thread. But whats the issue here?

        The sexual marketplace isnt the word you are looking for, instead you are looking at the casual-sex marketplace, which is what Tinder is, and the other appears to be.

        No woman goes to Tinder hoping for a long and meaningful relationship, she goes there when she wants some free food, maybe a place to sleep, and some dick.
        Maybe its not moral, but thats the kind of woman you are getting, when you as a man, sign up for tinder. If you want something more, don't use the casual-sex apps.

        That said, getting away from Tinder, you still have those women, and even on more regular dating sites and services (like Its Just Lunch, which I'm a fan of) woman still have vetopower on every meetup. So do the men, but they are far less likely to use it (I am assuming here, but I figure its a reasonable assumption)

        The problem isn't that the women are being "Too picky" its that your visuals, and a spruced up bio are all she has to go on. If I know nothing about you other than a bio that you spent a week writing and refining, and a selfie taken with ur last girlfriend, I'm not going to be interested unless you are absurdly attractive. Even a 7/10 or 8/10 doesn't stand a chance there.

        Then again, I don't do casual-sex apps, and as a successful, business-focused woman, I don't care for unattractive, unmotivated Billy Betas who still live with their parents.

        load more comments (14 replies)