Looks vs Game

I posed the below question on my Twitter recently. I wanted to find out what guys would prefer to have, and implicitly find out which they thought was more effective and had more power. It was really interesting to see the near perfect 50/50 split in results (I myself would have gone with “great looks, average Game”). I’ve also included one of the responses to the poll from MorpheusX because he raises a great point: try and optimise both given finite time and resources. The results would suggest that half of the people who responded would rather tilt their efforts towards Game, and the other half towards looks.

I use the word tilt because I think that most people would accept that both Game and looks are massively important. It’s also why it was important that I phrased it as “average and great” because I wanted to avoid any silly strawman arguments such as “what if the guy with great looks has never met a girl before and acts retarded around them” and “what if the guy with great Game has a strike-out physical deformity?”

In this post I’m going to argue that if a choice is required, you should tilt towards looks (and I hope that you’ll appreciate that I’m not taking this opportunity to say that looks don’t matter, that Game is all that’s required, and therefore buy my books and hire me for coaching!).

A lot more guys are talking about the Black Pill these days, which at its most caricatured form says that only looks matter. Now, even though I sided with “great looks, average Game” I don’t want to be labelled as Black Pill. I also wouldn’t want to be purely labelled as Red Pill either. Once you get put inside an ideological box then you’ll find yourself trying to convince others that everything inside that box is true, and everything outside it is a lie; it’s the curse of consistency. That can easily lead to us having egg on our face and leaving money on the table. Better to be an empiricist who’s model changes according to the best data. When it comes to the looks vs Game argument, I see that the guys who stick at Daygame and become good at it are at least “decent looking.”

First of all, your looks are immediately apparent, and can be spotted from a distance. A girl can only rank you for your Game once you start employing it up close. You also have less off-days in your looks compared to off-days in your Game (because of poor mood, illness, stress, etc.). You can work on your looks before the actual Daygame and dating and they pay off passively, and over multiple sets, sessions and weeks, whereas Game is linked to your mood and so fluctuates more, meaning a good session today is only weakly related to a good session next week. There’s also the fact that a good looking guy can easier play the potential relationship angle in order to get girls across the finishing line (even though he may never intend to be their boyfriend). The average looking guy is going to have to work a lot harder to convince the girl of the same thing.

Then there’s the argument for reference experiences. Good looking guys can generate earlier and more frequent reference experiences – lays – which leads to them being more excited about Game, and sticking with it. Someone with average looks will have to congratulate themselves on getting stops, hook points and phone numbers, which might not feel like an achievement for them because everyone in the community talks about lays (lays this year, approach to lay, etc.).

The problem is that even though we all talk about relative success i.e. the male 8 bangs a female 7 isn’t as much of an achievement as the male 5 banging a female 6, that’s not how people think. Even if the good looking guy is “slumming it” with 7s, the average looking guy will still be jealous of his results because he will see the pictures and immediately compare them to his own.

Now let’s dissemble the question a bit. How do we even define “results?” You could say that the good looking guy will perform averagely within his own looks cohort. But the average looking guy will get better than his cohort. Sounds good? Yes, but the problem is that he will get 6s, and most guys want 7s (as I’ve talked about above).

What if we break Game away from other behaviours. The good looking guy might have average Game, but could have a great vibe or simply be likeable. Also, what if his Game isn’t a consistent 5/10 all the time, but instead fluctuates between being absolutely awful and amazing? On those amazing days he can hit some incredible home runs. What about other sources of SMV such as status? Good looking people are regularly reported as earning more which implies that their jobs will convey higher status. Lastly, there’s good old fashioned luck: the good looking guy faces less immediate blowouts and so he gets more time for good luck to find him.

We should also consider what the average man looks like. The average man in the UK is obese. I’m sure that the average level of Game (if we could measure it somehow) ranks around pretty clueless, but even that guy can notice very strong green lights.

So at this point you might be thinking to yourself “what’s the point, I might as well give up now because I’m not good looking.” No. This isn’t an invitation to rage quit, it’s an invitation to rise to the challenge! Here are some absolutely arbitrary benchmarks I’ve pulled out of my arse for you to work towards:

  • Reach 15% bodyfat (which for most people happens when you can roughly see your abs)
  • Be able to bench press your bodyweight for a one rep max (you can use this link to estimate your 1RM from other rep ranges)
  • Get a cool style and don’t dress like a dork
  • Do 25-30 sets a week (for a large city) and 10-15 sets a week (for a smaller one)
  • Record your stats for your first 1000 approaches and use that data to work out your weak points
  • Work towards having a multiplier of at least 5 (i.e. 5 approaches for a number, 5 numbers to a date, 5 dates to a lay)

If you complete the above then you’ll have been looking after your looks and practicing Daygame for long enough to have some perspective. At that point, you’ll see where it would be best to apply your efforts. And there’s absolutely no excuses (ZERO EXCUSES!) to stop you from improving both your looks and Game at the same time. A calorie deficit, last I checked, is free, and in fact all the walking from Daygame will help you with that. In terms of building muscle you can do 10-20 hard sets per bodypart per week, which is achievable in five hours of gym time per week. If you can’t do enough sets in your own city then go the nearest large city for a day each weekend to get the extra volume in. It’s not complicated.

Yours unfaithfully,

Thomas Crown

If you enjoyed this post and want to support the blog then please consider buying one of my books or hiring me for coaching. Follow me on Twitter for daily updates.

> Buy my memoir (£12)

> Buy my textbook (£20)

> Hire me for Coaching: Skype consultations and infield available (£25 per hour and £50 per hour respectively)

> Follow me on Twitter

Looks vs Game