A data-driven analysis: should you “double text/respawn/reinitiate” dead leads?

Actual texts my old FWB sent me from a Tinder guy, “Jordan”.

Some guys call it double texting. Others call it re-initiating. My preferred word is “respawning” (credit to a buddy from a great Misc tinder group chat I used to be in). Essentially, it means following up on a lead that has gone cold over text (or whatever platform you happen to be using).

Many coaches, like JMULV and Alex Vilenchik from Playing With Fire, advocate following up with cold leads via text three days after they’ve stopped responding. If I remember correctly, JMULV does this twice before letting the lead die.

But what’s the chance of this actually working? Is it worth the investment of time and mental energy? To my knowledge, no one has ever gone through the data and checked.

I went back through my spreadsheet and looked though my 67 notches in the 2.5 years I’ve been in the game. Of these, I secured four with a respawn:

  • One Chinese girl I had matched on Tinder, we flirted, things got sexual, but she eventually went cold after a few days. About six months later, I saw her when flipping through my Tinder and sent her a text again. She remembered me, happened to be horny, and invited me over to her place that night.
  • Another girl from Boston wouldn’t stop matching me on Tinder. I had gotten her number the first time, but she cancelled the date. Two weeks later, I respawned, set up a date, and then she ghosted when I tried to confirm. She then matched me on Tinder again, I messaged her, no response. A week later, after I had reset my account, she matched me a THIRD time, and after some messaging it was finally on. It was the most IOIs I had ever gotten on a date. Saw her a couple more times and eventually dropped her. She continues to chase me to this day.
  • A third Australian exchange student I got from a Tinder message respawn. She didn’t reply to my opener, so I sent her another message a week later. She responded and we met up that night. In person, I teased her about not responding and she said was legitimately busy, confirming that my double message “worked” to bring me to the top of your list.
  • The fourth girl was somewhat similar for the first. We matched when I was living in another city last summer. Brought things to text and she went cold. This summer, I matched her again, things got immediately sexual and we hooked up a few days later.

You’ll note that none of these are true “double texts” a lá JMULV: getting a girl’s number, having her go cold, and after a few days/weeks sending a ping text that magically revives her and leads to the notch.

According to my phone, I’ve gotten 695 numbers in the time since I’ve been actively gaming. Of those, I’ve probably attempted the double/triple text after a few days on around 350. It has never led to a bang. (And no, I didn’t send needy, boring texts like our friend Jordan in the image above. My respawn texts are always humorous, memes, or callback references to the conversation with the girl).

Conclusions:

  • The JMULV strategy of double/triple texting cold leads is not worth it. If she goes cold, she’s not interested, and the small amount of girls that might respond positively to this isn’t worth the physical and mental effort.
  • Mass/bulk restart texts aren’t worth it. This was an old PUA strategy of texting hundreds of ice-cold leads in your phone the same message. May have barely worked a decade ago, but now girls have too many options, and if it’s been over a month and you’re just another number in her phone, it’s over.
  • Respawning Tinder matches that haven’t responded is only worth it if you can automate it, and even the, probably a waste of time. Luckily, webapps like www.tind3r.com or Tinder for Web make it much easier to copy and paste.
  • Respawning cold leads that show renewed interest in you (you match with them again online, or maybe see them out during the day/night and have another positive interaction) is probably worth it.

But then again, this is just my experience. If anyone else wants to share their data, I would be happy to update my priors.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “A data-driven analysis: should you “double text/respawn/reinitiate” dead leads?

  1. Good piece, man.

    So 4 out of 67 lays were from “re opening” them via msg. That is >5% of your lays. In business, that would be a very nice “optimization.”

    But in general, I think you’re right on: I don’t think I have any reopens that went anywhere. Maybe I do, but I doubt it.

    “The is no single piece of information from which to judge your odds of banging
    a girl that is more informative than her very first reply to your feeler text.”
    — Krauser, from Infinite

    This is basically true, as I see it. When we get “wall of text” back, it’s on. If not… less so.

    And beyond the numbers… I think Yohami is dead-on that “rescue texts” (as Sneaky Tom likes to call them), are “Bottom Guy” behavior. Really cool guys don’t do much of that. I think that is correct. This flavor of chasing helps her know you’re not worth dating. Mostly true.

    I would go further, and say that I think we take an internal state hit when we chase cold leads. Even if it doesn’t hurt our chances with the girl… I think it’s proof to OURSELVES we are Bottom Guy. It doesn’t feel good to try. And it feels even worse when nothing comes back. Who cares about the girl… but you carry that “one down” hit with you into your next set. You feel like a beggar, and that leaks out with the next girl you try to seduce.

    This ^ is the best reason I have for not “chasing” like that. When I feel like chasing… I typically go open new girls. Much better use of my time.

    The only exception I have to all this is when I was in Japan on my last trip. I was taking 4-6 numbers per day toward the end of my trip. I would hit up all girls twice.

    But then, I had a cool event and no strong “yes” for a date. So I DID “spam” my dead leads, teasing them with an “event.” I got tons of responses. I realize this wasn’t as much about me as I would like it to be.

    But I got this one girl out for that event (I was able to pick her from the crop of interested I generated with the spam tease). And she was one of the hottest girls I dated on that trip. Had a BF. Solid makeout anyway… but she wouldn’t come home with me.

    THIS ^ strategy, was successful enough that I would try it again.

    My larger rule: If I am KICKING ASS, I will ping dead leads more, as the swagger from my overall game can’t be hurt by “one down” from this kind of chasing.

    But if I am NOT kicking ass (dating a ton), then I don’t do any of this as all (even though that is when I am the most tempted). When I am already “one down,” I avoid all behavior that will aggravate that “one down” internal status… so no chasing. None. More game is the only answer for me when I’m in “famine.”

    Like

    1. Agreed on the ~5% optimization, but in business it’s much easier to automate something in order to optimize it (e.g. a cart abandonment email on an e-commerce site). In the player business, this requires some manual work and time, and as you said, potentially a state hit. Unsurprisingly, the actions that were the most “manual”, e.g. matching with a girl again on Tinder or having another positive interaction with her, were also the most effective, which is why I recommended those and not the double texts with zero-investment girls.

      I see where Yohami is coming from with the Bottom Guy argument, but a Top Guy is getting laid so much he likely doesn’t have time to respawn dead leads, so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, assuming double texting actually worked, I would rather be have the girl think I’m bottom guy and get laid X% more than save the ego hit from mass texting my respawns that week. Of course, it doesn’t really work, so the point is moot.

      Like

  2. I’ve tried some unusual stuff in this regard: https://theredquest.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/snapchat-in-game-wish-this-was-you.

    I don’t like rescue texts, but I’ve noticed that girls respond differently on different platforms. So if she’s silent on text, switch to Snapchat or Facebook.

    If the amount of time and mental energy spent is really truly low, then I think this is worth doing. As long as it doesn’t screw up the guy’s psychology.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s