432
433
434

How Tinder facilitates SMV/RMV price discovery, or Why "No Hookups" is the funniest, most common phrase on Tinder (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 1Revo_Luzione

For the average guy, we all know Tinder sucks, but even if you never get laid from it, I believe it's doing men a favor: In economics terms, it "facilitates price discovery," showing a woman's true relationship mate value. To define terms, relationship mate value is a more specific valuation of a person's true options. For women, since non-sluts generally value relationships more than sex, a woman's RMV reflects the SMV of a man she can lock down for relationship. The men an average woman can get to commit to relationship are generally 2-3 points lower, sometimes much more, than a man she can pull for sex.

While this price discovery process is boosting the N count and the egos of millions of women, creating an asset bubble, it eventually causes the SMV bubble to burst when women attempt to convert short-term SMV points into long term RMV assets, only to discover a currency discrepancy caused by high SMV men "shorting" most women in the RMV market.

This concept will be self-explanatory for many, but to explain a bit further why and how Tinder works as an RMV price discovery machine:

A dating app based almost solely upon looks will cause the top 20% of men to receive the majority of matches. These men will pump & dump with impunity, because a large urban area have a virtually inexhaustible supply of women to match with the top men. So a lot of women swipe only on the men they think are hot, and eventually go on dates with these hot men. The Tinder newbies and the less discerning will spread their legs on the first date, or at least give up a BJ, and few tinder date trajectories get to the 3rd or 4th date without sex. That's when women start to push for commitment. This, gentlemen, is the beginning of a woman's true winter of discontent on Tinder, especially if they're 30+ and looking to settle down.

Men with options will always resist the pressure of monogamy. Or if they do capitulate to a woman's monogamous pressures, it's often a Trojan horse (heh) of capitulation, while the high SMV man continue to spin plates, therefore snatching up options. High SMV men are basically able to, with a single swipe and some tight game, initiate a call option on a slew of dames. Being outgunned on the RMV market, even just theoretically, by the younger, hotter, tighter, they fail in converting SMV to RMV points for the men they desire.

So women end up getting burned, over and over. The young, high SMV ones don't care, they don't realize they're on a treadmill to nowhere, they bask in the loving glow of attention.

The older ones, those looking to get into a relationship, i.e those 30+, become Tinder-jaded after a few failures to convert on 4th down--that is, she gives up the poon on the 2nd or 3rd date, then goes for the monogamy touchdown, only to have the pass batted away by an ever-so-slightly younger, hotter, tighter dame who also matched with the guy with 200+ matches.

This is why the most common phrase to close a Tinder bio on a woman older than 26: "No hookups," or some variation. Hamster translation: I've been burned a few times and I want a guy who won't bail when I ask for commitment after a few dates of trading saliva, followed by hot sex.

How do I know this? I'm a fit, articulate, 40 year old with a photogenic face, good photos, and a decent bit of text game, and have had dozens of tinder dates, banged handfuls, and consistently match and get at least date #1 with 21-25 year olds preferentially, but with hot women up to late 30s. I get opened consistently on Tinder by women 8-10 years younger than me.

Some of this discovery for me became clear after a few dates that went poorly. On one in particular, with an older woman, I felt frustrated, her ego was out of control, so when the subject of our tinder experiences comes up in conversation, as it often does, I casually offer the fact that I match with 25-year old hot-yoga teachers with Instagram accounts, and other YHT dames. The response was illustrative. She folded. Since then, I've showed a few mid-30s dames my Tinder account. It doesn't matter that I haven't bedded a particular young morsel, only that I've matched and have conversed with a serious hot young competitor. Upon checking out my market ticker, older dame's eyes bug out, and then they act like they've been hit with kryptonite, and usually the date goes south with a quickness from there. I usually only use this strategy on older broads who are putting up a lot of attitude, and whom consistently shit-test and/or try to steal the frame. It's a nuclear option, but I feel that this form of a naked short offers more efficient price discovery for these broads on the RMV market.

Some post-price discovery tracking--on Tinder, it's relatively easy to see who's still in the market, and I notice that a lot of broads I match with don't stay in the market long. Their accounts often go dark. It only makes sense. After all, I can't be the only high SMV guy who's exploiting our current well-endowed market capitalization.

Finally, I know a ton of 30's women in my social circle on Tinder, and I know of only 1 successful couple created out of this roiling market, and they're both fairly well-matched in RMV because both are semi pro athletes, she's early 30s but still hot, and he's mid 30s and not into spinning plates.

TL;DR, Tinder provides a reality check for women on the relationship market.

Edited for spelling & clarity.


[–][deleted]  (9 children)

[deleted]

[–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 27 points28 points  (7 children)

It was a natural and inevitable progression, considering all our discussions of "market value" of some kind. I'd be surprised if Rollo or another manosphere heavy hadn't already written about this, though perhaps not related to Tinder.

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

There's a blogger who goes by the name "Captain Capitalism" IIRC, who actually does frame male/female relationship discussion through an economic lens.

In fact, here is an older post where he talks about men leaving the relationship market and why they do it.

[–]the_irish_kid123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cappy had one that even spoke more directly to the post above. Charts included displaying this two tiered market: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2010/09/economics-of-courtship-part-1-two.html

[–]2Overkillengine 99 points100 points  (8 children)

You'll also note they never try to invest in improving a man that has stable groundwork/provider traits- they always try to tame a badboy like all those movies say they can. The stable guy is just a placeholder at best while they try to trade up. They also never try improving themselves enough to get a man with both security and excitement traits to stick around. Instead they waste decades spending an asset they can never get back- their youth.

Predictable results ensue.

The "No hookups" phrase does have a wonderful use for men though which varies by goal.

For men looking for a long term relationship, you know the woman makes bad decisions when it comes to men.

For men looking for an easy lay....you know the woman makes bad decisions when it comes to men. ;)

Same goes for single moms.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Same goes for single moms.

This goes triple or even quadruple for single moms. Fucking a guy whom she knows is non-committal, yet still deciding to bring his baby into the world, is the textbook definition of making bad decisions. And the sad part is, she has set that child up for a lifetime of difficulty, and all for completely selfish reasons on her part (she was trying to lock down an Alpha Fux). Being a single mom is an automatic minus 3 on the SMV scale, and an automatic minus 10 on the RMV scale.

[–]I_like_big_titays 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I think this is an odd trend, because I notice that girls on tinder who are dealing with a past relationship or have been recently broken up with, will gain weight and hook up in a way to validate that they are still desirable, when in reality they could hit the gym and increase their RMV instead of just being a hook up girl. Either way its a slippery slope if you are only investing in parnters rather than investing in you, and that goes for both sexes

[–]2Overkillengine 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's not a constructive trend in the long term, but gratifying in the short term.

Consider it a symptom of western culture's emphasis on hedonism over utility.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[deleted]

    [–]trp_gremlin 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    Wow, you usually only hear this in reverse positions. Girl slimming down and leaving dude.

    Care to elaborate?

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]trp_gremlin 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      Glad to read your story, glad I could help.

      [–]2Overkillengine 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      I've seen women try to fix a man before. Usually fails miserably. Guess that shows with enough monkeys and typewriters you get Shakespeare.

      Edit: And it didn't sound like going into the relationship that you were the most stable man for her to try to build up; but rather attractive enough for her to try to domesticate.

      [–]doveenigma13 17 points18 points  (2 children)

      In my experience the women that lead with no hookups are the ones most likely to meet you late at night for a hook up. They also are most likely to make it a one night stand regardless how they present themselves as wholesome. AWALT.

      [–]yumyumgivemesome 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      It's true. I met up a "no-hookups" feminist (didn't realize she was a feminist until the date), and the first thing she did when we got back to my apartment was start pouring more drinks. This enabled her to get her brains fucked out that night and morning. Only in follow-up texts did she start rationalizing her behavior as a product of her high level of inebriation.

      [–]doveenigma13 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Ugh. I had a feminist once. Super clinger.

      [–]bam2_89 29 points30 points  (17 children)

      My tagline is "no single moms."

      [–]Furrealyo 16 points17 points  (7 children)

      Some of the advice here, like "no single moms", needs to be taken based on the age of the target market.

      As one gets older (40+), plating single moms actually becomes preferable to plating childless women for a myriad of reasons.

      [–]TRP Vanguardnicethingyoucanthave 15 points16 points  (1 child)

      The great thing about single moms is that they're not up your ass for attention all the time. Most nights they have their kid. They can only go out when the crotch fruit is with the sperm donar.

      As long as you make it a rule that you don't meet the kid, it's fine to date them.

      A lot of them just want a night of the week where they get fucked and watch tv in a quiet house. It's like the lowest amount of work you'll ever have to do for a girl.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      As long as you stay the Skittles Man and don't project much provisional potential.

      [–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 13 points14 points  (0 children)

      plating single moms actually becomes preferable to plating childless women for a myriad of reasons.

      I intuit a spectacular spermjacking tale behind this.

      [–]captshady 18 points19 points  (2 children)

      46 here. Loads of 40+ single moms, most of them with adult kids or near-adult kids. They rarely even need to be gamed. Just have your own place and a job, they're givin' it away.

      [–]Furrealyo 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      45 here and can confirm.

      It's really nice to have them fighting over us for a change...

      [–]1KyfhoMyoba 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      50+M, here. 35+Fs are easy as fuck for me now. I can get the DTF vibe from a few seconds of eye contact now. I am looking for the mid 20s, though. Got some issues to work through.

      [–]fuck_da_haes[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I guess that's because they don't wont any more kids, right?

      [–]blue_27 15 points16 points  (3 children)

      You just eliminated 95% of the online market ...

      [–]CrimsonDeep 11 points12 points  (2 children)

      You just eliminated 95% of the online market ...

      My tagline is no fat chicks/BBWs...

      I eliminated like 60% of the online market

      [–]brotherjustincrowe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      No fat chicks, cheaters or crazies would wipe out roughly 98%.

      [–]trp_gremlin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Probably more. It depends on your definition of "fat chicks" but I'd go as high as maybe 80 %.

      [–]GC0W30 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      How's that working for you?

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]bam2_89 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        I don't check it anymore. I haven't even changed the zip code since moving out of state.

        [–]yumyumgivemesome 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        I haven't even changed the zip code since moving out of state.

        That's not how Tinder works.

        [–]bam2_89 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Whatever. However you set up the network, I haven't updated it.

        [–]NeoreactionSafe 80 points81 points  (35 children)

        This is pure genius.

        I tried a similiar post titled "Real vs Imaginary SMV" and it was brutally attacked, so I hope yours does better than mine did.

        You've tapped into the core issue:

        • RMV is a woman's "Real" price... it's actually going to fit closer to the actual bell curve of available men no matter if they have game or not.

        • SMV is the "Imaginary" price because the woman can get pumped and dumped but can't turn it into a deal.

        Excellent.

        [–]Senior ContributorRedPope 36 points37 points  (1 child)

        I tried a similiar post titled "Real vs Imaginary SMV" and it was brutally attacked

        You got corrected for misusing common RP terms and criticized for posting too often, when it was obvious you'd only done a surface reading of the material. My comment even said "I don't want to discourage you..." That was sincere. There was no brutal attack. Just one single post.

        Don't act like a victim. I wasn't trying to chase you off. Your partial reading is more than many subscribers have done. You clearly have an interest in RP theory. That's great. I just want you to slow down. To finish studying before you try teaching. Learn what the terms actually mean before you attempt to redefine and expand upon them.

        Finally, recognize that TRP is an applied philosophy. It is meant to be practiced. To truly understand it, you have to turn off the computer and spend some time using it in the real world. You can't skip that step. This OP got on Tinder, went on dates, and did the field work.

        [–]NeoreactionSafe 12 points13 points  (0 children)

        No harm, no foul... I do tend to overreach a lot.

        I find that the conflict / interaction online is my best teacher because I'm forced to go down paths that I'm not understanding correctly. (we develop blindspots as we progress)

        When alerted to my error I do learn from it.

        My original post was using just SMV which is properly separated from RMV in this newer thread so it's better written.

        [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 26 points27 points  (15 children)

        Indeed, sex value for women is "imaginary," unless they get knocked up. Then they've secured the DNA of that man, and maybe his money too, but most women are looking for the whole package.

        From a genetic perspective, it may be that the current roiling, turbulent sexual market is bad for happiness but good for genetic quality, in addition to being a better model of price discovery. Early and widespread monogamous marriage creates market inefficiencies by "locking in" those with strong SMV mismatch, causing friction. There's friction anyway, but monogamy may exacerbate it when also paired with a weak patriarchal structure as we see today.

        [–]NeoreactionSafe 46 points47 points  (14 children)

        The discovery process has changed.

        In Marriage 1.0 there was a long and very intense dating process before the deal was made. It was rare for people to marry that weren't a good match.

        In Marriage 2.0 we don't "date" anymore and jump directly to sex and then the woman must attempt to retrofit a relationship on top of a hookup. Since that mostly fails the woman "feels" like she's settling "down" when she marries her Beta Bucks, but in reality that's her real value. (RMV is always 2-3 points below her SMV)

        The 20% / 80% rule is all "Imaginary" because women don't price themselves objectively.

        Unfortunately a women's poor pricing ability translates to a market that is very weird with 80% of eligible men effectively off the market.

        And I'd add that men subtract from their potential by being a Beta Bucks. If the guys who make good money could just learn Red Pill enough to understand that seeking approval is going to make a woman feel "large" (above him) rather than "small" (below him) then his pricing will more accurately reflect reality. Women must feel "small" to Tingle.

        Women OVERPRICE.

        Men (Beta) UNDERPRICE.

        [–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 12 points13 points  (1 child)

        I think a lot of the PUA and Redpill stuff is honestly just the ability to show men their actual price on the dating market.

        [–]krakosia 3 points4 points  (4 children)

        you sound like you might have read Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan :)

        [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        Good book, interesting author. It deserves its own post.

        [–]krakosia 3 points4 points  (2 children)

        The author, Christopher Ryan was on the Joe Rogan experience multiple times. His first one is a must watch

        [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Indeed. I've listened to all 3 of his appearances on JRE. He's got his own podcast, Tangentially speaking, that's great as well.

        [–]krakosia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        yes, thats a good one too. Another good one is the duncan trussell family hour hosted by duncan, comedian and friend of rogan

        [–]DaSaw 1 point2 points  (6 children)

        So what would the even earlier version of marriage be when parents and/or matchmakers told people who they were going to marry, and that was that? The beta version? (har har)

        [–]NeoreactionSafe 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        There was no "Beta" before 1970 because there was no "Divorce Rape" yet, men were still men and in control.

        Beta means you underprice. (put women above you)

        The moral of this thread is that Betas need to stop with their stupidity and get to at least a MGTOW level. (women neither above or below you)

        Red Pill tends to have a:

        • Millenial Generation Bias

        ...where everything is suddenly wiser today than all of human history.

        So you have to ask yourself:

        Really?

        All you need to do is look at art from previous generations:

        http://www.socialmatter.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/whore-of-babylon.jpg

        ...does that look like art from a people who are clueless about women?

        [–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        There was no "Beta" before 1970

        Not true. Everything was there, just not as plainly visible. The girls would shag the hot guys, but not to the extent they do now (10+ years of CC).

        [–]NeoreactionSafe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        1870?

        The decline in wisdom about the nature of women really started a long time ago.

        Try reading stuff from back then and it's clear that they knew.

        Beta is the "terminal state" of a very long decline in masculine wisdom.

        The "Last Man" (1844-1900):

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man

        Nietzsche saw well ahead of time where Marxism and Masculinity were heading.

        As he said, "the event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude's capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet."

        ...well it took 100 years, but Beta has arrived.

        [–]DaSaw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I admit I am new here. I don't fully understand the terminology yet. I just posted that for the pun.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]NeoreactionSafe 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          That's the gap between SMV and RMV.

          Women live in the "Imaginary" world of SMV until they hit "The Wall".

          Beta males are locked out of the SMV world and forced to be Beta Bucks after decades of being incels. During their lockout they develop an "Imaginary" overpricing of women that hurts them in the "Real" RMV negotiation so that they get less than they could.

          It's the Misandry Bubble... distorted pricing.

          In Marriage 1.0 there was a lot of effort to get to the "Real" RMV from the start and SMV was not entered into the negotiation. (no sex before marriage)

          [–]soccerplusaviation 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          OPs theory reminds me of the price of diamonds and is analogous to women. Their perceived value is heavily inflated, because De Beers put up a front that diamonds are rare but the reality, they are a dime a dozen, just like a pump and dump.

          [–]snukums 1 point2 points  (12 children)

          Why not Relationship Market Value(RMV) and Sexual Market Value(SMV)

          SMV isn't imaginary, it's just not transferable into RMV, so I see what you are saying but doesn't making a distinction between Relationship Market Value and Sexual Market Value make more sense than saying one is "real" and one is "imaginary".

          [–]NeoreactionSafe 9 points10 points  (11 children)

          I'm okay with SMV, RMV as terminology.

          From a woman's perspective I seriously doubt the idea that they go on the cock carousel thinking that all they want is sex.

          Underlying the cock carousel is the desire to actually land themselves a long term mate. ("Mr Big") They want the best and think that riding the cock carousel will give them access to men 2-3 RMV points above them. (trading SMV for RMV)

          RMV is the only "real" value for women because that's what they ACTUALLY score from the use of their bodies for sex.

          SMV is "imaginary" because a woman thinks she's playing the game so that she is validating herself for higher status men, but that's her illusion. She's really just getting pumped and dumped as the stupid slut she is.

          • The "epiphany" is when women recognize this huge gap between her SMV and her RMV.

          ...but often this happens too late ("The Wall") and her SMV has dropped 30% or more and she's now forced to RMV mate with 2-3 points lower in the SMV-to-RMV exchange PLUS this 30% drop in real world SMV. (wrinkles, etc)

          • The net effect is the "imaginary" SMV 9 female will wake up one day to be a "real" RMV 5.

          The shock of this sudden drop at "The Wall" creates fear and panic in women AND it makes her future Beta Bucks marriage very painful because now she is actually living in the real world... which she really hates.

          If an Alpha Fucks comes into the life of this married "Failed Princess" then she is overly eager to return to the "illusion" of her higher SMV just like she imagined during her prime. So this pattern of illusion and failure has negative impacts going forward in her life and is the root cause of her inability to be a good wife and mother.

          Add "Divorce Rape" into the scenario and now you have another fantasy where a post-Wall woman imagines being free again to ride the cock carousel. Once she actually gets the divorce she discovers that her SMV is about a 4 at best and no one wants her. She fades away as another sad angry feminist slut preaching the beauty of Feminism. After all... the ONLY time she felt good was in her prime when the "illusion" seemed so real.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 2 points3 points  (7 children)

          You make this seem confusing. High SMV is fuck-worthiness. High RMV is keep-worthiness.

          There are many ways to screw up. A common one is to a LTR a woman who doesn't deserve it. Average Guy rates women on SMV alone and is thrilled to acquire steady access to poon.

          Being thirsty, his Hot Pussy Blindness makes him too forgiving of her sins and shortfalls. Her low RMV makes for an unsustainable arrangement where he's over-contributing, and soon enough he gets fucked over.

          [–]NeoreactionSafe 2 points3 points  (6 children)

          You are viewing it through a man's eyes.

          Women ONLY are sexually attracted to men they see as UP from them in SMV as "they perceive that standard" which is a discussion in itself. This means they want a relationship with all the guys that make them Tingle.

          What the women don't understand is that when higher SMV men have sex with them and validate them it's not "real" in their distorted reference frame because that man has no intention to commit. Those men are just using them for sex. (as sluts)

          • Women honestly believe they belong at a higher RMV level because their SMV is elevated when they are in their prime.

          Think of it as simple math.

          If there are 100 men and 100 women then the ACTUAL marketplace will translate into 100 marriages assuming perfect price discovery.

          But if the market becomes distorted and all women THINK they belong in the top 20% they will not allow the marriage to occur until after "The Wall" when they must find something.

          "The Wall" really describes the point when the illusion of riding the cock carousel fades and reality starts to sink in. But the N count permanently damages the woman so when she marries the guy she ACTUALLY can get (the Beta Bucks) it feels like a terrible let down.

          The illusion creates the failure, that damages her future, and her families future.

          Reality for a woman is who she can actually get to commit to her... her inflated SMV only makes it harder for her to see reality.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Women's eyes for a man? It's AFBB. She's looking for high SMV or high RMV. Ideally both (the manicorn).

          Her eyes for herself? Yes, that's where the distortion or "illusion" comes in. Years of unearned attention and validation can make her grossly overestimate her SMV and neglect her RMV.

          But she can fix her own shit. It's the man's eyes I care about here.

          [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Nailed it. AFBB has been with us since agriculture and paternity fraud. Before that, paternity was a non-issue because all men that slept with a woman prior to a childbirth invested in that woman and child.

          Today we need illusions and market distortions to enforce this. RP clears the fog.

          [–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          AF/BB is the byproduct of a woman's illusions.

          She "thinks" she's gaining access to "something above" when she sleeps with a higher SMV male when she is in her prime but in reality she's just a slut being used.

          BB never occurs until after "The Wall" when she syncs up her SMV with her RMV. (settling downward)

          The whole point is that the cock carousel achieves NOTHING for women because it does not increase her RMV... in fact the deeper a woman descends into the cock carousel the further into the illusion she goes.

          Basically the illusion never dies... Alpha Widow is the degenerate state she goes to after chasing an illusion and failing.

          Marriage 1.0 actually prevented the cock carousel (obviously) so all negotiation was done based on the womans true RMV and not the inflated SMV because there was no sex before marriage. (smarter for women actually)

          Mathematically we might write:

          • "Men who would have sex with a woman" (SMV) > "Men who would marry a woman." (RMV)

          Women's illusion is based on the difference between these two sets.

          [–]ProductivityMonster 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          that's just terrible for an average man (say a 5). This means he can only get women with SMV's of 4 max, which means their RMV is like a 2 at best. However, the SMV/RMV gap is higher for hotter (higher SMV) women, so maybe it's like an RMV of 3 at best. Yikes...I understand why some men go MTGOW, especially if they are deficient enough in unchangeable categories (height, facial structure, etc.).

          [–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          It's possible for a woman to have a SMV of 9 and an RMV of 9 too.

          Those get taken by high status men.

          It's the SMV 9 with a RMV of 4 that gets passed around and pumped and dumped.

          The mistake is that women aren't improving their QUALITY.

          Add Charm School to a RMV 4 and she might become a RMV 9.

          [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          It's not terrible because a man can do so much to change his perceived SMV. Just a bit of "fake it til you make it" is all he needs.

          This a woman cannot do nearly as well.

          [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          The problem is when women let their vaginas do the thinking. If they overruled that and remained chaste, then they would not likely get dumped so much and would remain far more desirable to RP men looking for a wife.

          Game is just a bunch of ways to succeed with a woman whose vagina is doing the thinking for her. Vaginas are not noted for their self-discipline and planning skills.

          [–]NeoreactionSafe 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          They are just making the mistake of assuming if a guy will have sex with her that he will commit to her. (SMV = RMV)

          That's a false assumption.

          It's only when she gets serious about discovering her true RMV price (after "The Wall") that she realizes it was all imaginary as she rode the cock carousel. None of those higher value men ever, ever wanted her.

          [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          None of those higher value men ever, ever wanted her.

          This gives a good clue to the proper "game" attitude.

          I still find it useful to think in terms of brain reasoning (does this guy really want me? etc.) vs. vaginal "reasoning" (I am tingling, I want this guy inside me NOW, I am attracted to him.)

          A very special woman can consider both aspects. For most, the second simply overrules the first.

          [–]myexile 18 points19 points  (0 children)

          Haha I love the trading references.

          It's so true though.

          While they may get an ego boost from insta-matching just about any guy, they will never be able to to lock down someone out of their league. They may get hookups that are out of their league, but generally will not get relationships above their actual value.

          By league I mean their market value, they can get way more beta bucks and fake alphas, but they will still have the same problem they always have with trying to get a real AF to commit.

          [–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

          the best part of this were the recounts of you burning idiot cougars, i want more field reports of this please mwahahaha

          [–]iopq 15 points16 points  (3 children)

          Written by iopq

          Short term in-depth analysis reveals that RMV may now be at the very end of a bearish wedge or triangle. If this breakout persists, there is a good chance that at least a short term SMV rally develops. There is support in the 25 area, so unless the trendline is broken, the bullish breakout materializing can easily give Tinderers 100% returns.

          My subscribers can get more in-depth technical data like Elliot wave tools, volume trends, back-tested moving averages, proven tests of divergence/convergence statistics.

          The diligent analysis plus an almost 24/7 coverage of our analysts ensure that those hooking up predictions can be used well to outperform buy and hold.

          Happy dating and have a good TINday!

          Disclaimer: Please always do your own due diligence, and consult your wingman. Author owns and dates bitches and other sexual markets mentioned in this communication. We never provide actual dating recommendations. Dating remains at your own risk. Never get into a relationship unless you can afford to lose your entire stable. Please read our full terms of service and disclaimer at /r/TheRedPill

          [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Brilliant. Disclaimer, especially so.

          [–]Senior ContributorNightwingTRP 5 points6 points  (9 children)

          It should probably be noted too that while Tinder is providing a reality check in the difference between their SMV and RMV, the process of doing so ups their N count (something which can not be undone) and thus destroys their ability to pair bond. This reduces their chances of forming a loving, lasting bond with a future husband. Instead they will go the way of the AF/BB and look back at their life mournfully, wondering where it all went wrong and why they couldn't be satisfied.

          It's a lose-lose for women and they don't even realise it. But hey, so long as the economy is making money and womyn be havin' sex... it'll all just work itself out, right? "Everything happens for a reason and Prince Charming will come sweep me up eventually." Nope. But it's also not my problem. It's all just an interesting tangent to me. Good post.

          [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

          I agree completetly, Tinder is accelerating a general trend towards more poor bonding experiences due to higher and higher average N counts.

          Unfortunately there's not much we can do. As they say, the market must correct itself.

          The only saving grace is that women, even moderate N women, will bond with men whom they perceive as having high SMV. You could say that falling in love is realizing that the person is as good as you're likely to get with.

          [–]truchisoft 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          The market will not correct itself, laws are in place that create this imbalance, laws have to be put in place to correct them.

          [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Actually, the culture is correcting them, so the laws are stepping in to tilt things further in females' favor. More campus anti-man codes (unconstitutionally bad "rape protection" for women) and all the money behind "he for she" promoting white knight behavior by men.

          But still feminism is suddenly out of style among women. They suddenly dread being seen as bitches.

          [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          It used to be that the culture kept females in line. Now nothing does.

          The only thing that could keep them in line is dread. As they see women with high N counts being unable to lock down a man, if they can observe this, they may start to change.

          I am not on Tinder but I get the sense from online comments on female-heavy blogs that this awareness and resulting dread (seen by men as more respect) is actually appearing.

          [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          I am not on Tinder but I get the sense from online comments on female-heavy blogs that this awareness and resulting dread (seen by men as more respect) is actually appearing.

          I'd love to see some links to that effect, archived, of course.

          [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I just don't see the manhating stuff on Thoughtcatalog and such that I used to. Even on Reddit /r/relationships the women are calling out other women now on their shit.

          The difference from a year ago is something I definitely notice. It's a general impression from hundreds of threads in various places, so a single link couldn't prove it. However, I challenge you to find something obviously anti-male on /r/relationships any more. There used to be plenty of such comments.

          [–]metallica11 5 points6 points  (1 child)

          this x 1000. As a tinder user for the past year with around 10 lays from that app, I have noticed very very consistent trends and this exact same phenomenon.

          First of all, I would put myself not in the top 20%, but pretty close, just based purely on my pictures and profile. I have a slightly above average height, pictures which show off musculature, and a decent face (but not what you would call "hot" or "super cute"). I probably had 200+ total interactions on Tinder. First of all, I rarely matched with a girl with a fit body and a cute face (what I consider my "equal" in terms of SMV). When I messaged her with similar game as the other ones she was usually receptive but soon dropped off or flaked on the date. However, when I messaged girls that were slightly overweight with a decent face (but not fat), I succeeded in getting a date probably 50% of the time (which is a good success rate on tinder). In every instance I ended up sleeping with them on the first or second date. These were girls that weren't "fat", but were not in good shape. Also, in every one of these instances the girl begged for a second date/more meetups etc.

          I would say I am round 6/10 and maybe a 7/10 on a good day, but can only get consistent success with 5/10 girls on tinder. There was only one instance where I was able to land a cute girl with a fit body.

          Yet I know men who are attractive that are just killing it on tinder. I am talking multiple lays a week from the girls that I have never been able to land on there using LESS game than I am using.

          So read gents, if a cute girl matches you and you have a good conversation but she goes silent it is 90% of the time because a better looking guy is taking her out. Problem is, it's never equivalent SMV. That's the root of the ENTIRE issue. its fit men with average faces being rejected by fit women with average faces for fit men with hot faces.

          And I can tell you, I don't need a PHD in stats to know that the only thing that matters on tinder is looks, period. That is, if you can talk like a normal human being, looks are your problem. Problem is, with expansion of social media and sites such as tinder, this is starting to become the societal norm. Strangely, though, it is furthering natural selection and future of your species, if you think about.

          Optimize those pics. Do the stuff that you scoffed at as "ridiculous" because it will work. Who cares if it is ridiculous. Photoshopping out those few extra blemishes or use software to make your jawline slightly more angular in that picture. Just don't get too unrealistic about it. It can literally make or break your ability to attract women on tinder.

          Pictures Pictures Pictures. I met a guy that was seeing one of the girls in my social circle, he showed me the lays he was getting - incredible - 8/10 women lined up to be with him. I was confused at first - he was average height, decent face, but ridiculous skinny (small frame etc) wearing ripped hipster clothes etc. Then I looked at his tinder pictures - extremely photogenic. Great Jawline with scruff highlighting his tattoos on his arms - definitely does not look as good in person but it doesn't matter - he hooks them emotionally on there to his image and when he meets them they don't care because they are already emotionally hooked.

          Men have been reduced to candy in a candy shop on there, so play the game back.

          [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Pay a couple hundred bucks to the people who digitally enhance models' photos. Go to a modeling website to find them. Don't try to do this yourself, hire a pro.

          Add some muscle / size in the right places, take it off in the wrong places, make the face look just a bit better, a subtle change can mean a lot and these guys do it for a living.

          [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (13 children)

          What do you guys use as your profile descriptions? I'm in far better physical shape than most guys my age (22), and have some quality photos up. Be that as it may, I've found Tinder to be a shit show. I know I'm doing something wrong, but I don't know what it is.

          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

          [deleted]

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

            Thanks for the advice. I changed my main picture to one of myself and one of my female friends a few days ago, and noticed a subtle increase in matches. As a student with little money, I can't do a lot to pretend to be rich, but once I start working in a few months I should be able to change that.

            [–]LSAB 9 points10 points  (1 child)

            I go with "I got the money, I got the place. You got the figure, you got the face". Worked wonders. When I switched it to something else, I didn't get nearly as many matches.

            [–]Kyuzo_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Solid line. I might steal that if I can ever give up the ridiculous "I like to rap about sweetened romance, my fond ambition is of your pants "

            [–]LuvBeer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            I don't have any tagline and do okay in a very competitive market. Standard shit: me with a dog, me with buddy, me with girl at halloween party. Only one selfie. I don't have a good eye for my own pics, so I crowdsource pic selection: when I get a pic of myself that I think will get good response I post it as a Tinder moment and based on the votes, make it a main pic or not.

            [–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            What do you guys use as your profile descriptions?

            "World-renowned, frequently copied, never equalled."

            [–]iggybdawg 0 points1 point  (4 children)

            Do your own "price discovery": there was a post here awhile back that suggested you swipe every single woman, just to see which ones want you.

            [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            That defeats the purpose of the filtration aspect of the app, because the data set of women who wants you is irrelevant. THe only set that matters is the set of women who you want that also want you.

            [–]iggybdawg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            The biggest problem I had in high school was my own over inflated valuation of my SMV. Seeing the full set of women who wanted me would have been just the cold hard slap in the face I needed at the time, even if just to motivate me to hit the gym and spend money on better clothing. Gaming the app like this gives you full information.

            [–]LeFlamel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            It's a great way to keep track of one's own progress, but I started that tactic from a BP/monk-mode "I'll take what I get" mindset before I started learning it's worth.

            [–]ProductivityMonster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            they have an algorithm which penalizes people for doing this now.

            [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 6 points7 points  (3 children)

            I would guess there are more guys than girls on Tindr due to its reputation as a hookup app. This is a GUESS, I can't find hard facts on the interwebs.

            If that's true... her reality is further distorted. She's got her pick of guys looking for a hookup, even more than normal. So she gets SMV+3 instead of the usual SMV+2.

            BUT... these are hookup guys. Not real dating. Making the difference between hooking up and commitment bigger than ever.

            For the over 30's with massive amounts of attitude: 12 years of learning how to be a bitch, or massive amounts of denial? Or do they think that shit is actually attractive?

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            There may be more guys but as long as they aren't being swiped left, they may as well not exist.

            Tinder has a high dropout rate from men finding out that they barely ever get any matches or responses.

            [–]Surf_Or_Die 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Why? Because you believe that women desire sex less than men do? This is the mentality that comes from being a part of the 80 %.

            Women desire sex and hook ups just as much as men do. The only difference is that women either fuck up or equal on the 1-10 scale. Men will fuck down because there are so many pussy starved guys out there.

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

            Anyone got the facts on number of women vs men on tindr?

            [–][deleted]  (4 children)

            [deleted]

            [–]EsquireKing 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            You put yourself down 3 times before you listed one positive trait. Do you have a car, are you white, can you play guitar? Instead of beating yourself up over not having this, or that, make the most out of what you do have.

            [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (1 child)

            Fudge a bit on the height, get your photos digitally enhanced like models do (there are specific people who do this for models), as long as it generally looks like you so what if later she's thinking the photos looked better than the real article?

            Tinder is so much about the photos, it's stupid not to fix those up.

            [–]ProductivityMonster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            absolutely...it's a shallow app (because like most dating sites, it caters to women who are shallow) so play the shallow game. You can even wear 2'' lifts to the date so you can fudge your height on the app as 4'' taller than actual instead of just 2''. Most people generally won't notice up to a 2'' fudge factor.

            [–]SgtBrutalisk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Have fun and enjoy life. Don't waste years chasing unreachable masculinity goals that won't attract women. Trust me, I was there.

            [–][deleted]  (7 children)

            [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

            RMV and SMV are completely different things. As an example whores are usually high SMV and no RMV. A girl needs SMV to have RMV, but not the other way around.

            [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

            I tend to agree with you. Another example, as above--betas--high RMV, often low SMV. Male models with tons of options--high SMV, low RMV, however due to handicap principle, super high SMV men don't seem to need much RMV.

            [–][deleted]  (2 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I don't think of Beyonce as having high SMV but if others do, they can enjoy her.

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

              All I can say is that you have the entire thing upside down in your mind.

              And no, a girl cannot have any relationship value if she has no sexual value. If she is unfuckably ugly she will not do for a relationship with any man.

              [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Yes, thanks for the correction on the call option, you're right the put option makes much more sense in the metaphor.

              I'll consider what you said about real versus perceived option. If SMV works as a global concept encompassing potential relationship value, it must work then because humans are pair bonders, and our genetic lineage has a much better chance of long-term success when parental investment is high. This gets us into a discussion of r vs K selection. So perhaps there's a distinction to be made in r vs K SMV. Need to think on that one for a bit. Intuitively, it makes sense.

              [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              There's really no distinction here. Remember put-call parity:

              C(S;X) - P(S;X) = S - X

              (actually the last term is time-discounted but ignore that here) where S = the "stock" itself i.e from the man's point of view, the woman X = strike price of options C(S;X) = call option on S struck at X P(S;X) = put option on S struck at X

              So having a call option is equivalent to having a the woman and the put option, minus some fixed costs:

              C = P + S - X.

              It's true that these are two very different ways of thinking about the problem. That's why put-call parity is so often useful.

              [–]gmflag 11 points12 points  (3 children)

              I completely agree with this. I am not the hottest guy on the SMV by any means (me being Asian, 5'7", 140 lb of lean muscle, and a poor med student), but god damn the attitudes of some of the older than 25 women. I have done some things I am not proud of through Tinder, but it really gave me a dose of the pill I have ingested but not fully metabolized. Never ceases to amaze me what some women will do just to satisfy their tingles and validation crave.

              I only want girls younger than 25 now, preferably undergrad age.

              [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              "Med student" probably gets you a lot of gold diggers who are willing to hang on through a few years of "genteel poverty" for the perceived promise of very upper middle class status later.

              [–]gmflag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Not necessarily. A lot of girls KNOW how much debt we med students have. They know that upper middle class wont come for quite a while since residents get paid shit (us public school teacher's salary pretty much).

              [–]soccerplusaviation 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              My takeway. If you grind it out in your 20s and work on yourself and you live in the big city and you have tinder, women become a dime a dozen.

              [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              So ... add 5 years to your age.

              [–]Dad7025 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Nice combination of economics, finance and football.

              [–]get_real_quick 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Excellent application of rudimentary economics to the sexual marketplace. Credited.

              [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Can someone explain what the duck is going through women's heads when they put pictures up of her and her boyfriend/husband. I've seen pictures of their wedding photos to pictures of them embracing in a kiss. I saw an acquaintance of mines fiancé on there one day. What gives?

              [–]THX138 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              I have left reddit to join GlowZap.com.

              If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension TamperMonkey for Chrome (or GreaseMonkey for Firefox) and add this open source script.

              Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

              [–]sir_wankalot_here 8 points9 points  (19 children)

              "No hookups," or some variation. Hamster translation: I've been burned a few times and I want a guy who won't bail when I ask for commitment after a few dates of trading saliva, followed by hot sex.

              No it just translates into, I don't want to hookup with you. I have not used Tinder, but with OKCupid there was the standard, no hookups, I want a serious relationship and no married men.

              Yah I forgot to mention, I am older then OP, married and not into serious relationships.

              I would message them, and I would tell them while you are looking for you wonder guy, lets have some fun. After hamstering it would come out to either two things.

              • she already has a fun guy (alpha fux) and is looking for a beta bux.
              • I would become that fun guy.

              Half of the posts here do not even follow TRP basic principles. Never listen to what women say in this case.

              [–]JayViceroy 9 points10 points  (17 children)

              Wrong. It means one of a few things, but most likely girls put it on their bio because tinder is seen as a hookup app, not a dating app and don't want to appear as a slut when their mutual friends see their bio. Although in this day and age people in their 20s like me, I guess my generation, see dating as a person you're fucking even if not exclusively.

              [–]LuvBeer 12 points13 points  (0 children)

              This. Tinder is saturated with choads with zero personality who message girls with "hey lets do fuck". I've gotten easy lays simply for not making overt sexual references, instead opting to "meet for coffee". The "no hookups" line is like uniformed police patrolling for pickpockets: simply a crude filter to discourage the most low-level douches.

              [–]sir_wankalot_here 2 points3 points  (15 children)

              Valid point. Same idea, different media. Things never change. 25 years ago when you picked up at the bar, you agreed to meet the chick outside the bar, main reason was so her friends would not see.

              [–]JayViceroy 4 points5 points  (13 children)

              However, now a girl can do the same with seemingly unlimited men completely discreetly. I know girls in the 100+ in their early twenties.

              [–]usernameson 5 points6 points  (12 children)

              Am I the only one who thinks this is gross?

              [–]JayViceroy 1 point2 points  (11 children)

              Me and 4 of my buddies have all broke that barrier and the funny thing is none of them would date a girl that's had more than maybe 15 dudes in the pipeline. So no it's not. However, don't hate these women. Many of them were probably damaged psychologically before they ever became sexual. Some of my favorite people are girls that are sluts.

              [–]Furrealyo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

              Herpes would like a word with you and your buddies.

              Let's be careful out there...

              [–]JayViceroy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Well 3 of the 4 guys are engaged to be married now, so I'm guessing these girls wouldn't have locked them down had they been herped up

              [–]ben0wn4g3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              They can do it with zero effort in a couple of years.

              [–]usernameson -1 points0 points  (7 children)

              Am I the only one who thinks you and your buddies are gross too?

              [–]JayViceroy 0 points1 point  (6 children)

              Don't hate us, cuz you ain't us!

              [–]usernameson 0 points1 point  (5 children)

              No hate. I just can't wrap my head around why you guys would want to do that. The few times I've had sex without love, it felt disappointing, pointless and a waste of time.

              [–]JayViceroy 2 points3 points  (4 children)

              News flash! Love isn't real. And if it is for you, it definitely is NOT for her.

              [–]drallcom3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Never listen to what women say in this case.

              Exactly this. Her hamster doesn't want a hookup, but she totally wants one with a hot guy. It's not a hookup, because she said so.

              [–]changshuaidiao 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              I think women want to conquer alphas like men want to conquer virgins. She'll jump through a lot more hoops to get the relationship if she thinks nobody else has gotten it before.

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

              Am I the only dude that doesn't wanna bother teaching virgins to do everything and wants a semi experienced girl instead?

              [–]LosingMoneyAllDay 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              When you take a virginity, that girl's entire sexual experience revolves around you. You become the center of her tingles. In her naive mind, she can only experience that with you.

              I prefer to teach. It is easier to get what I want. Once they start to shit test and become accustomed to me, then I reevaluate whether or not the time is worth the sex.

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

              Honestly, in experience with Tinder, it all comes down to pictures and the Parent Principle. I don't like to talk about myself, but I would say that I am not a bad looking dude. I'm tall, lean, and have a good future ahead of me, but have absolutely dreadful pictures. I know this, and I'm Mulatto which (if OKTrends, which is great by the way, is to be trusted) says my chances of matching with anyone is less on a dating website. IN real life it is MUCH MUCH easier, but it's hard to tell over an app like Tinder. I've still done ok on Tinder. Got a couple hundred matches, but it usually doesn't pan out.

              Then there is the Parento Principle which says 20% of the people get 80% of the results, more or less. This applies to most things in life, and Tinder is no exception.

              [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Get good pics, by a pro if needed, and work on your text game & first date charisma. You'll go far with it if you 've got a couple hundred matches.

              In the parlance of this post, you're an underperforming asset.

              [–]sluggy1616 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Based on hypergamy thesis I think you have to consider a 2 stage model in regards to women. 1st stage is Alpha fux(pre-wall). This population is comprised of top 20% of males and the top 80% of women. 2nd stage Beta Bux(post/nearing wall)- 80% of women and all beta males.

              [–]jakethesnake76 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              Another good Article Tyler Durden..

              [–]JungleJuggler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              It's amazing what kinds of things some people waste their time with...

              [–]DaegobahDan 0 points1 point  (14 children)

              The men an average woman can get to commit to relationship is generally 2-3 points lower, sometimes much more, than a man she can pull for sex.

              Not necessarily. Your typical alpha actually has a very low RMV, quite simply because he won't commit. The two numbers are fairly independent of each other. (Unless you mean 2-3 points lower in SMV points, which is probably true)

              [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 9 points10 points  (13 children)

              You are quite right, I should have clarified SMV vs RMV in that reference. Betas are high RMV, but low SMV. We all know they might as well be invisible.

              Women want both high SMV and RMV. But SMV is primary, and in this chaotic market, it's almost a sign of high SMV to admit that you're not boyfriend material. It's almost as if she wants to prove you wrong, that her superior feminine energy will unlock her partner's latent RMV simply by nature of her specialness.

              [–]Rathadin 16 points17 points  (5 children)

              Its funny, but I think you're spot on.

              Every time - every single time - I have a girl who wants me to end up her boyfriend after a few weeks of hookups, I tell her flat out, "I wouldn't be a good boyfriend, I'm an asshole," they always... always... always - without exception - fire back with, "Awww! :) You're not an asshole! You're just <insert trait here>!"

              And they're always wrong.

              Because I'm an asshole.

              [–]Philhelm 1 point2 points  (4 children)

              Do you ever park in handicap spaces, while handicapped people make handicapped faces?

              [–]Rathadin 1 point2 points  (3 children)

              No, I'm sort of the reverse asshole in that situation... if you park in a handicap spot and you aren't handicapped, I'll call the cops and report your tag, along with submitting multiple photos for evidence with date & time stamps attached. That's just being a shitbag... not an asshole.

              Bonus points for an awesome song reference though.

              [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              When handicapped spots are vacant 80% of the time (some places it's more like 99%), you are indeed being an asshole there.

              [–]Rathadin 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              There's lots of other spaces, walking won't kill you. For 70% of Americans, it'll actually do them a lot of good.

              [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Not here, often people have to drive around for a while looking for a parking space to open up, wasting time, burning fuel and risking an accident. Meanwhile the handicapped spots sit there, everyone afraid of the ticket they would get by using them.

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

              Your RMV generally is only as good as your SMV if you want to actually hold down a relationship worth a damn. If you are a 4/10 guy in terms of smv, your rmv is capped massively. However the same is not true the other way around.

              [–]LeFlamel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Which is a shit test that'll make a beta more often than not. Seen too many friends go down that path.

              [–]heyImMattlol 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              Good analysis.

              What does YHT mean?

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

              "younger, hotter, tighter." From heartiste's blog, coined by commenter Great Books for Men

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

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

              going short means you're going to make a bet that the value is going down. Selling it, basically. Opposite of going long, which means you think it's going to rise in value, so you're buying like mad.

              Good financial acumen is an RP trait, might want to find a good source to learn about it. I don't have a reference for you, I have simply accumulated some knowledge over time, and some commenters here undoubtedly have far more knowledge and experience than I.

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

              It scares me how much this shit makes sense.

              [–]SekretSkwirrel 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              How did you end up in a situation where you were showing her your Tinder matches without looking like you were showing off?

              [–]1Revo_Luzione[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              Short version--she initiated. We were sitting next to each other at a bar, my phone was on the bar, and she asked me "What's your experience been like on this crazy site?" then aggressively grabbed my phone & attempted to open my tinder. Crazy bitch, I know.

              It was locked, of course, and I let her fumble with my locked phone for a minute. I answered, truthfully, "Pretty good overall, weird, interesting, but good." She got this really intrigued look on her face, and I knew I could fuck with her by showing her. So I unlocked it and flipped to a conversation I was having with the hot 25 year old yoga teacher.

              [–]bitregister 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              I think Tinder might start to get upended by newer hookup apps like https://meetdrinks.com (Asia only but I am sure there are others like it) where all the pre-date chatter is eliminated. You look good, let's meet. ;)

              [–]BetterFred 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              "facilitates price discovery,"

              initiate a call option on a slew of dames

              you work on Wall Street bro?

              [–]1rp_aware 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              I love "winter of discontent"! Just wanted to say.

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

              All these women on Tinder giving it away for free are the reason we are quiet at work Lmao.

              Loved this piece though. Excellent writing.

              [–]admirals_go_nuts 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Haha, id like someone to videotape you pulling that on 30+ broads, I bet its like a grape to raisin transformation within seconds.

              [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              To see if I understand this RMV concept, let me propose a theorem.

              Since men primarily want sex (with women) and women primarily want relationships (with men) it follows that:

              For a man: RMV >= SMV For a woman: RMV <= SMV

              [–]fhghg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Unless you're the pool boy. AFBB.

              [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              OK let me continue. This is a bit garbled because option valuation always occurs in a time-sensitive environment. It's obvious right at expiration but the interesting stuff happens before. I am ignoring time for simplicity, so things will seem a bit simplistic to those with experience in options.

              Since an option (put or call) always has positive value or at least not negative:

              The man calculates the woman's value to him: SMV = RMV + P(SMV)

              where P(SMV) is the man's Put option to dump the woman short of a relationship, struck at her SMV i.e. he gives up her continued sexual services by dumping. Note the sequential nature of the man's decisions. First fuck, then decide whether to dump, plate (which doesn't often last too long), or accept into a relationship. He obtains all those opportunities by obtaining the woman for initial sex, so their value is additive as shown.

              For a man (i.e. woman's decision problem), it seems more complicated because the woman has a more difficult problem. If she obtains a man, she obtains only his SMV. We can assume for the sake of argument (excluding pool boys and others with big dicks and little else going for them) that the man's RMV > his SMV to the woman. But she will only obtain that RMV if he does not dump her. Since this is the woman's decision problem this is what she cares about. Not his value to other women or his opportunities that he will enjoy, but his value to her. Thus we're back to P(SMV*), where SMV is starred here because it refers to the woman's OWN SMV. The man may be a great catch, but then she'll succeed in keeping him if and only if SHE is relationship material.

              So the woman calculates the man's value to her:

              RMV = 0 if P(SMV* ) > 0,

              RMV = SMV/r if P(SMV* ) = 0

              Why does RMV = SMV/r if he keeps her? Because she obtains a perpetuity of his sexual (and other) services. The value of a perpetuity i.e. receiving a value every year forever, is 1/r where r is the interest rate. (In reality there's no perpetuity, we all die so sex stops, but on the other hand women seem to have increasing need for sex, so perhaps r<0 for the years we are alive. A man's RMV is a huge number if she wants him and can keep him.)

              In the current rates environment where annual interest rates r < 5%, 1/r > 20 . She's playing for keeps. It's incredibly important that she get a guy to commit.This is a very big number, which is all I am trying to convey with the notation.

              And so I close with a word of advice to women. DO NOT LET P(SMV* ) > 0 HAPPEN! Do not fuck men who will dump you. If you get dumped several times, you become a party girl, a high N-count and P(SMV*) will be in the money for all future guys as well, and you'll grow old with your cats. This sounds like the advice your grandmother gave you (your mom was probably too feminist to understand or accept this) but now I have expressed a proof in terms of financial math.

              [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              [–]strivingforfreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Loved reading this post because of the great metaphors used. Bravo sir, bravo!

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

              30 year old women are on tinder? The oldest ones I see are 22...

              [–]Furrealyo 0 points1 point  (1 child)

              I see girls 40+ all the time...

              [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

              You need to fix your filter, son

              [–]surfjihad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Clearly you understand financial markets which makes this post doubly interesting

              [–]krustytheclown2 -2 points-1 points  (11 children)

              I am not a stock broker and I don't really get the post.

              What advice can you give someone (like myself) that doesn't get many matches at all on tinder?....I heard about taking a photo with a dog but that seems pretty beta.

              I'm 24 year old college study, south asian, 5'10 and 17% bodyfat but I am on a weight loss diet. I am of average looks.

              [–]Rathadin 6 points7 points  (8 children)

              Essentially he's saying these women that are 7s/8s are acting like they're 10s, because they can pull guys who are 9/10. For a single night.

              But they can't pull the 9/10 for the rest of their lives. And they spend a decade or more chasing those 9/10s only to wake up one day and realize they're 32-40, unable to snag the 9s/10s at all, and end up realizing they're actually 7s or 8s after all, and they're going to have to settle for 6s-7s, because any guy that's an 8-10 can easily pick up a chick that's 10-15 years younger than her.

              I've experimented with all kinds of photos. My best photo in terms of matches was a black and white of me in a suit, smoking a cigar, looking up and to the left. I shave my head completely bald and I have a Tony Stark-ish beard that's brown and grey. That picture scored me a shitton of matches, usually with girls from 20-28. I'm 34, 6'1", 210-225 lbs., 8%-10% body fat.

              I suspect its the appearance of power and wealth that comes from the suit & cigar. I don't make a huge amount of money comparatively to major metropolitan areas of the United States, but for my area, I make around 4x the average salary, which places me in the upper middle class.

              [–]LuvBeer 0 points1 point  (6 children)

              Interesting. I think this highlights how "contrast is king." I live in a place where suits and ties are everywhere and I get a much better response from sporty/street style photos, as measured by likes on Tinder moments.

              load more comments (11 replies)