Every person who comes into Daygame has this question. Even advanced Players have it. We know it works, but why should it ever work?
The first reaction of a person hearing about Daygame is along the lines, “So, did you get slapped?”. This is a huge mismatch between perception and reality. Daygame is not magic by any means; it is very grounded in science, actually, but for this person, this person who makes this comment, it is magic.
This is the point of this essay: to analyze exactly this question based on biology, sociology, and the proposition of Daygame.
The Stop: the Miracle
The invention of Daygame comes at the end of the evolution of Game. Game started as routines and gimmicks, and most importantly, Indirect. Later on, people started discovering that the routines and the gimmicks weren’t the ones getting them laid; their delivery, character, and value were. This led to the discovery of Direct Game: drop the scripted lines and work on the things that matter.
Daygame sits at the top of the pyramid of Direct Game. We are stripping seduction to its most essential parts; we don’t need an excuse to open anymore. This freedom and independence are two of the main draws to its practitioners.
Daygame starts when the Player runs to the girl, and she stops to listen to him. The vast majority of girls will not give you this option; they will blow you off immediately. That is okay, because a minority will stick around. Game is not about getting every girl; it is about increasing the chances of finding girls who will give us a chance.
This is the true magic trick: getting a stranger to listen to your pitch. This is where skill begins. This is where behavior can become predictable over large samples. Hence, the question of “Why Daygame works?” reduces to why the stop works.
Sociology Behind Daygame
Daygame and cold approaches in general (for example, sales, business) can only work when certain sociological conditions exist. In nature, humans are highly tribal. Most sociologists and primatologists can’t agree whether humans are monogamous or not, or whether humans are egalitarian or hierarchical, but they can agree on this: humans are clan-first and closed-minded.
Go to the average village with 100 inhabitants, and you cannot do Daygame. People won’t allow it. The conditions that allow Daygame are modern and highly unusual.
Cold approaches only work in high-trust societies. The diametrically opposite society to the small village above. In those, the social contract assumes that a stranger doesn’t come with bad faith. That is the groundbreaking advancement. It was only ever achieved in the West, and perfected in the aristocratic ethos of the early British ruling class with a focus on fair play.
For a full digression on the preconditions of social trust, I will refer to the book “The WEIRDest People in the World” by Joseph Heinrich. A summary version involves a combination of:
- Christianity: an unusually forgiving and open religion.
- The need for impersonal markets: due to Europe’s resource scarcity and wars.
- High education levels: coming from the Protestant Reformation. It pushed people to read the Bible in order to make their own interpretation of it. Hence, become literate by learning how to read.
The result is that we, as Daygamers, inherited a world that had primed strangers to cooperate in win-win situations. We demonstrate this by contrast: low-trust, tribalistic, or hierarchical societies (for example, India and the Mediterranean), where they structurally suppress multiple forms of cooperation, Daygame is hard. Very hard. Check the reviews of Mediterranean countries by other Daygamers, and they all agree: it is a huge spike in difficulty to get girls to step out of their tribe.
Compounding on this, we had the creation of big cities. This trend started with the Industrial Revolution and accelerated after WWII. This matters both in terms of volume, i.e., Daygame is a high attrition strategy (2-4% success rate being elite), and more importantly, in terms of a training ground to practice our craft.
Advanced Daygame can be applied in a wider range of environments. But don’t skip the important part, the Advanced part. Newbies will get slaughtered if they try to learn Daygame in hostile places. From Mediterranean countries, for example, I have heard stories of “2,000 sets with no lay” and “1 date per 100 approaches”.
The collapsing West
On the other hand, we have complete social collapse. This has to be factored into the analysis. Yes, the UK used to be a high-trust society, emphasis on the past tense, used. The current world is atomized and hostile to men. Especially for men into self-development. This was accelerated with COVID. All statistical metrics point to this, for both genders:
- Higher loneliness and isolation.
- Decline in in-person social interaction.
- Weakening social capital and trust.
- Mental health stress.
- Economic/social inequality in isolation.
This creates a duality; our social heritage doesn’t reflect our current conditions. Worse of all, but thankfully a balancing factor for Daygame, is the effect all this had on women:
- Collapse of stability. Women are no longer sheltered by their community.
- Collapse of social intelligence in women, the sex that historically depended on this for survival.
- Collapse of childbirth. For millions of years of evolution, women had children shortly after puberty. Now women have to wait until their 30s to pop out a kid, if they even get a chance. I am not saying this is for the better or worse, but it has to be inducing some serious psychological stress on them.
- The earlier onset of menstruation. Even 100 years ago, menstruation usually started at 16; now it starts at 12.
Taken together, we have the complete transformation of horizontal and equal social relations (your peer group, your friends, etc), with vertical and hierarchical ones (you and the government, you and work, etc). And on top, we have a destabilized and distressed female population. And … that is why Daygame survives.
Daygame is not a hack, a manipulation, or a magic pill. Daygame is an unusual adaptation that lets people re-establish healthy social relationships. It offers a rare and unique vehicle to bypass an artificial and constructed society. We don’t have to conform to algorithms, we don’t have to conform to petty rules of socialization. We only have to conform to Biology.
Biology Behind Daygame
Daygame and Game in general have carved a new path in evolutionary psychology. The early principles of this discipline provided several breakthroughs and incentives for their application infield. But what we, as players, observe is far beyond the current academic literature.
Many of the assumptions were good guidelines, but we have developed new theory in explaining the male-female interactions. Once we showcase those, Daygame will start looking very much biologically aligned.
Categorical vs granular archetypes
We start with the Lover-Provider dichotomy, which interlinks with the Alpha-Beta dichotomy. The scientific assumptions partition female sexual behavior between a need for good genes and a need for resources. At the extreme ends, on the former sits the Lover, and on the latter sits the Provider. This was popularized as Alpha and Beta.
This is a smart framework that explains tribal systems and social groups, but it completely collapses when we try to apply it on the street. You cannot be an Alpha on the street because we don’t have groups on the street. It is only you and the girl.
Instead, Manosphere developed the SMV explanation. We rate both men and women on a scale of 1-10. Her receptiveness is a factor of your relative positions. The scale is granular and versatile. This can replace the Alpha-Beta structure for all practical purposes and explains infield observations much better.
In particular, and very crucially, by the SMV explanation we have developed a more flexible and more encompassing model. The SMV model does explain group behaviour without the need for Alphas and Betas. This is how it applies backwards to tribes and groups: the Alpha just value-taps the other males and females in the group to amplify his own value. He does so by displaying social capital (leader) and preselection. He is not a mythical Alpha; he just has very high SMV compared to the group.
The Provider and how females assess value
More importantly, the Provider archetype itself has been highly disputed∗. Evolution works in generations. Mutations need time to spread, and biological time is exactly this: generations. For mutations to become imprinted in the brain of the species and become an aspect of Evolutionary Psychology, it takes even more time.
And here is where popular science has missed the mark. For the Provider to exist evolutionarily, we need time for it to evolve and imprint itself in the women’s psyches. What nobody points out is that private wealth didn’t exist before the dawn of Agriculture, only 10,000 years ago. If there were no private wealth, how could the Provider exist?
We even see it in modern times. No hunter-gatherer tribe allocates private resources individually; resources are collective. If anything, the collectivization of resources is much more natural from this evidence. If provisioning wasn’t individualized, women couldn’t biologically evolve to prefer it as a mating cue. Therefore, the Beta-Bucks side of Hypergamy cannot be true.
When women have sex, they assess their stability in life in general, not the stability the male brings. Betaness and the stability it provides are indeed worthless on an individual level. Instead, the stability assessment she makes is global. Even the modern gold digger sees value in the status the male’s wealth brings, not in the wealth itself.
Therefore, there is only one type of sex: validational. Not transactional, just validational. This is sex that girls enjoy because it is hot. This is precisely what allows for fast lays, not the Alpha-Fucks idea.
Value is subjective, not objective
In reality, what girls verbalize as hotness is measured based on the value that the male carries. However, this discussion is incomplete because it doesn’t take the woman’s choice into account. Choice is the innate preference for mate selection. A female might like a man based on genetic compatibility that we cannot quantify.
Males, we don’t have choice, we cannot understand this. If the girl is willing to put out, we most likely accept. Our evolutionary strategy is expansive because sex is non-committal. Girls have evolved to have an innate choice, because their sexual strategy is limited by the number of eggs and the high cost of pregnancy. They need that choice. Evolutionary speaking, choice can only be two things:
- Quality of the genes
- Variability
The first one, quality, is about getting the best genes. The second one is a hedge against nature. If all children come from the same father, their genetic quality is roughly the same. If the children come from different fathers, the chances of exceptional quality children rise. Since mating is so competitive, this matters: an exceptional child (especially a male one), can outperform multiple average ones.
Here is an example to understand this. Assume all kids who come from Father A will be the best antelope hunters. All kids who come from Father B will be the best farmers. For a woman wanting to maximize the probability of passing her genes, it is much better to mate with both men than only one of them. Simply because she cannot know which trait will be best in the future, the farming or the hunting trait. It is hedging.
This is the root of the confusion regarding value. The “quality” part is objective. It is translated as the attraction threshold, meaning girls will only mate with guys who satisfy at least her minimum requirements. This is a strict boundary. On top of that comes her innate choice. She will give extra points to some guys based on her and their biology. This is documented academically, eg, some girls prefer certain smells. It is also documented empirically, some girls just have a type.
The result of this discussion is that value is subjective to the eyes of the girls. At least a portion of it. There is no objective measure of male value.
Biology and Daygame
Combining this section’s themes, we have the following conclusions:
- Male value is gradational (for example, 1-10) rather than categorical (for example, Alpha-Beta). This is what makes Daygame possible.
- There are no biological rules for the length of courtship. There is no Provider. Fast sex is allowed in nature.
- Daygame by gunning for validation sex, is actually gunning for the one true reason why women have sex.
The Daygame proposition: Value and the SMP
When people judge Daygame, they take the average Joe and think he can get laid. Have you actually seen seasoned players? These are rare males who have worked on their value and their inner composure. They are not average men.
Daygame provided the excuse, but the real work in terms of value has been done. Daygame is not an easy hobby. Success comes from a long history of failure, practice, and self-development. And even then, it is rare, 2-3% on average. For a male who has:
- Done inner work: faced his demons.
- Worked on his value.
- Is skilled in social interactions.
That is so far above the average. Especially in our current collapsing society. That man deserves to get laid and succeed in Daygame. If you are getting results from Daygame, you are worth it. Revel in it.
