Big post today. A personal game-changer for me, at least in a small way. No actual techniques today, just a set of observations and experiences.

As everyone knows I have been heavily online dating for many years now. It still amazes me when one of my¬†experiments¬†provide results that are not only¬†positive, but wildly surprising and unexpected. What I’m about to describe is just the latest in a long list of experiments I’ve conducted with online dating (in a never-ending quest to improve my results and lessen my effort) where the results shocked me, but yet were unexpectantly¬†pleasant.

This is also a perfect¬†companion¬†post to determining your target market for women that we discussed last week. What I’m about to describe is a perfect testament¬†to the wonderful things that happen when you focus like a laser beam on your target market; i.e. the women most likely to have sex with you quickly.

As most longtime readers know, when it comes to dating my objective is to get to sex as fast as possible, with a minimum amount of time, effort, drama, money spent, and without having to lie or stay up late into the evening. Also, the women I sleep with must be at least “8’s” on my personal 1 to 10 hotness scale. These things have always been my objectives in terms of dating, pickup, and seduction, and always will be. Everything I do and¬†everything I test is structured with those parameters in mind.

(Note I’m not talking about relationships here…that’s a¬†completely¬†different topic and I have a very¬†different¬†set of goals there…I’m only talking about dating at the moment.)

When I first started out years ago, I was quite terrible. However after years of experience, experimentation, tracking, etc, I now do the above, and do it regularly. Exactly how I do it is all described in this ebook and this ebook.

There are many reasons for this, including the obvious ones, like skill with online dating, skill with real-life dating, strong game, confidence, outcome independence, etc. Another core reason is my willingness to determine and focus on women most likely to have sex with me quickly, and to ignore the women who are less likely to do so (as we discussed last week).

As a result I know, for example, that women age 18-23 fuck me very quickly once they get the courage to actually meet a much older man in real life, women age 24-27 also fuck me fast, women age 28-32 take more time but can be workable, and women over 33 strongly resist fast sex unless I already know them through some other means (in which case they’re just as sexual and relaxed as younger women). Yes, I’m¬†generalizing, and yes, there are¬†occasional odd¬†exceptions to everything I’m saying, but the vast majority of the time it’s accurate.

Therefore I’ve learned to, for example, avoid women over 30 or so and focus on younger ones. So far this is all very old news for anyone who’s been reading my stuff. But here’s where it gets interesting…

One day I sat down, went over my spreadsheets where I track all of this stuff, and did some thinking. If you were to visualize a graph, women age 18-23 have fast (i.e. low) meet-to-lay times with me. I also have very fast meet-to-lay times with women age 24 to about 27. It’s age 28 where an increase in¬†the meet-to-lay time curve begins to occur, and at age 33, it shoots up like a hockey stick.

Historically, I’ve used that logic to do the¬†following. During an online dating blitz, I focus purely on 18-23 year-olds first. When I run out of women, I then move up to 24-27 year-olds. I only go to 28-29 year olds if I run out of women again, which usually doesn’t happen. I refuse to open women over age 29 no matter what happens.

This has worked, and I get laid a lot, very fast, with a minimum of effort, whenever I want.

However I wanted to push the envelope and see if I could improve these results even more. So I mused about how I could get laid even faster than I do now, while keeping everything else the same (same low drama, same low cost, etc).

The one difference, at least for me, between the 18-23 crowd and the 24-27 crowd was that while they both had equally fast meet-to-lay times, the 18-23 crowd often took a little more time getting to the first date. This is normal and to be expected. Often I’m 20 years older than many of these women so some comfort and¬†safety¬†concerns need to be¬†satisfied with them before I meet them in real life, even if they’re Type 2‘s.¬†No problem. I know how to date much younger women¬†and get them¬†comfortable¬†so that’s no big deal.

But it does take some time. The 24-27 crowd never requires this “comfort time” online. I quickly pitch the first date, and they either instantly vanish or immediately agree and schedule the date, both of which are good results in that neither of those things waste any of my time.

So while 18-23 year-olds have very fast meet-to-lay times, overall time spent is a little shorter with the 24-27 crowd. “Overall” being defined as the direct communication time with them you spend from the moment you first send them an email opener to the moment you’re actually having sex. “Meet-to-lay” has always been from the moment you first meet in real life to when you’re actually having sex.

So I did an experiment to create an online profile with accompanying photos that would be 100% calibrated for women age 23-27. I fudged a little on the 23 or 24 bottom range, just to add some more women to the pool. 23 year-olds rarely balk on meeting me so it seemed a safe move. So putting myself in the mind of a woman age 23-27, I wrote out a brand new profile. I gathered together some photos of me that I thought would be best for that age group, put up the profile, and filled out the necessarily fields (leaving the appropriate ones blank for this age range).

Twice¬†a week for two weeks I blasted out a grand total of about 200 openers to JUST women age 23 to 27, completely¬†ignoring¬†all other ages. Then I sat back and laughed with glee at all the hotties who were bound to respond to my profile that I had created “just for them”. When I email women 18-23 my response rate is usually low, often hovering around 8% or 9% or so. I lay those 8% or 9%, so no big deal, but on this test I expected to pull much larger numbers¬†despite¬†my older age.¬†Maybe¬†even 20%!!! I was so excited!

The result?

A 2% response.


Oh well. This sometimes happens when I use a brand new, untested profile. I just go back and tweak the photos, then the ad copy, then the stats, and do more blitzes and adjust until the response rates get higher and the qualified responses get higher. “Qualified” as in they really are intending on meeting me in real life when they respond to my opener, rather than chicks who are bored or just seeking some “e-attention”.

Also, there are times where you do a blitz and you just happen to run into a batch of unresponsive or guarded women. You do it again a month later to a new batch with the same profile and are flooded with responses. This kind of thing does happen sometimes. In addition, having an age difference of more than ten years between you and the women often exacerbates this dynamic.

But honestly,¬†regardless¬†of all the logic, I was still a little disappointed. I mean, I’d understand a 10% response rate or maybe even a 5% one on an untested profile. But 2%? Lame!


2% means five women responded. Within a week of me sending openers I was having sex with one of these women: A vivacious 23 year-old with a damn near perfect body. Per my usual system, we had a first date that was just under an hour. Grand total cost to me: $6.50. A coffee for her and¬†orange¬†juice for me (I don’t drink coffee;¬†caffeine¬†is a drug and I don’t do those). The very next day I just brought her to my house and we were having sex within 30 minutes. That’s a 1.5 hour meet-to-lay.

Even better, almost zero time spent online talking to her. Just pitched the date on the third¬†exchange¬†as always, and it was scheduled. This is all to be expected, because A) I’m a very woman-experienced guy, B) she was in my fastest-to-lay age range (23 to 27) and C) she was in my target market of women (very feminine and girly, loves watching Disney movies, loves¬†dressing up in bright little dresses, very cute and submissive during sex, a solid Type 2 VYW who is very attracted to strong, masculine older men). She’s become a regular in my life since then, and I couldn’t be more pleased.

A dismal 2% response not only gets me laid, but gives me an ultra-fast lay with the exact type of woman I like.

In other words, this test blitz resulted in a 2% response rate, but a 100% first-date-to-lay ratio.


Afterwards I checked back on my spreadsheet, and saw to my surprise that I’ve had sex with three women out of the last four first dates I’ve had. Whoa. A few years ago I would have killed for those kinds of ratios. Granted, I have much less first dates these days (since my open relationships roster has been quite full for a long time), but still. As they say, the numbers don’t lie.

By the way, although this was all a few weeks ago I’m still working on two of those other four women who responded. One or two may very well end up being lays as well. All from a horrible 2% response rate.

I’ll be honest…I allowed a little negativity to seep into¬†normally-positive brain. After all of this I sat back and thought, “Getting laid this fast with this little effort? On an only 2% response? There’s no way it can be that easy.” (We all have a little AFC inside each of us, and sometimes he has to give his little negative opinion.)

But wait a minute! I reminded myself about one of my prior experiments…one about two years ago where I only emailed women I considered my version of a 10. No 7’s, no 8’s, no 9’s. Just solid Blackdragon-10’s and that’s it. So instead of sending out 200 openers as I normally do, I sent out just 17 openers…and was having sex with an 18 year-old Blackdragon-10 shortly¬†afterwards. From 17 openers. I still remember how bewildered and amazed¬†(and delighted)¬†I was back then.


There’s a lot of lessons to be learned from this. It’s¬†certainly surprised and educated me, on several levels.¬†I certainly haven’t wrapped my brain around all of the implications of this yet. Regardless, here’s what it demonstrates:

1. As I’ve said many times before, response rates don’t matter as much as you think they do. For several years now I have purposely operated on a low-response rate, high-lay-ratio style of online game that works very well, particularly with me and much younger women. (Which means if you’re opening women in your age range you don’t even need to worry about this problem.)

Occasionally¬†on the internet I’ll see guys who brag about “70% response rates” or even higher. However when you ask them how many of these women they’re actually¬†putting¬†their cocks into, you get dead silence. Response rates are still a metric that you should take a good look at and try to improve, but they don’t matter as much as you think. Even if you fuck one hot girl from online, are you really going to care about the other 50 or 100 chicks you emailed who never¬†responded¬†to you? I promise you won’t.

2. The the importance of real-life game. If you are fantastic at online game but suck at real-life game, you aren’t going to get laid. Real-life game even more important than online dating skill. Going out on lots of first dates over and over again with zero sex is a tough road to ride.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying understanding online game skill isn’t important. I know LOTS of men out there who are far better-looking than I am who can send out hundreds and hundreds¬†of openers and not get one first date with anyone. So online dating skill is critical.

I’m just saying A)¬†online¬†game and real-life game are two¬†completely¬†different¬†skills, and B)¬†both skill sets must be focused on and improved if online is an avenue you choose. (And it should be. Online dating is fantastic if you do it right.) When I first started writing ebooks a few years back I purposely wrote some ebooks¬†specifically¬†on the online portion of the interaction and others on the real-life portion. I did this for a reason…it’s two completely different skills.

After this fascinating experiment, comparing the results to other experiments I’ve done that have indicated¬†similar¬†results, I’m now under this impression:

If you have a strong, advanced level of real-life game and online game¬†and focus on your target market, your response rates don’t matter at all.

That’s a pretty bold statement to make, and hell, even I’m not sure if it’s 100% accurate. But damn, after this experiment, plus my “perfect-10” experiment, plus a few other experiments I haven’t mentioned here, I really think that’s the case.

Now if you’re a beginner or intermediate at the world of dating/pickup/seduction¬†and/or online game, then your response rates are something you should pay attention to. You need lots of first dates (or day2’s) under your belt in order to get really good, and you won’t get those if your response rates are terrible. I had to go through the same process when I was learning and getting good at all this.

But once you reach the more advanced levels I don’t think response rates matter any more. As long as you get even one or two¬†first dates, you’re going to get laid. I’m living proof of this, many times over.

If I’m right about this, and I think I am, this opens up an entire new world for you guys advanced in online game and real-life game. (I’ve you’re not advanced in both these areas yet, this should give you more incentive to get there.) That means you can literally pick and choose the exact type of women you want online (and I mean the EXACT type of woman, no matter how picky you want to get), then do much smaller, more¬†concentrated¬†blitzes, completely forget about response rates, and lay these women ultra-fast.

Again, I’m only talking about advanced-level guys here. You beginners and intermediates should not be too picky and email every woman you would possibly sleep with. Do this until you get lots of dates, lots of practice, lots of lays, and get really good. That system does work…it’s worked for me (and still works!) and has worked for many other guys who have tried it. So stick with it. (Plus, hey, I could be wrong about this new¬†theory. It’s still just a theory at this point,¬†albeit¬†a strong one.)

I’ll tell you what. Later this year when I need some more women to fill out my open relationships roster, I’ll run this exact same experiment one more time to confirm my¬†theory. If I get laid again this fast and easily with a horribly low response rate, I’m¬†officially¬†going to go from “I think I’m right” to “I’m right”.

I think I’m right. We’ll see.

Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.

11 Comments on “How To Get Sex Online With Low Response

  1. Very cool. Goes back to your old saying: online game is only important for scheduling dates.

  2. So what do you do differently when the age gap is 20 years plus? In my case, it almost always is … lol

  3. Me too. That’s a large question with an ebook-sized answer.The summary is that you don’t push quite as hard, develop more comfort first, focus on Type 2‘s, and don’t act creepy when you meet her in real life.

  4. For some reason, I have never thought about conducting my searches the way you do. The way I usually do it is I search 18-29, then sometimes 30-35. Dividing it up 18-23 and 24-27 seems like it would be way more effective than grouping all the age groups together. By the way, do your openers differ between age groups? Do you have an opener for 18-23 and another for 24-27?

  5. I have recentally done a small online blitz of 30 8+ girls a few weeks ago. Of those I had 4 responses (all 27-30yos. I might need to tweak my profile which is pretty much ‘provider with an edge’):
    1 I’ve already met for a day 2 lay,
    1 I finally got a day 5 lay (god why did I waste my time. She’s 30)
    2 more that I’m meeting for first dates over the next weekend.

    I’ve been doing online game for several years on and off while also focusing on night/club game. I’ve recently had a breakthrough with combining the two. I’m in my early 30’s, average looks, educated with a strong high earning career.

    ‘The summary is that you don‚Äôt push quite as hard, develop more comfort first, focus on Type 2‚Ä≤s, and don‚Äôt act creepy when you meet her in real life.’

    This is amazingly enough identical to my current game that I’ve suddenly found so successful and I’m probably 10 years younger than you (except for the type 2 focus). I basically act totally outcome independant and don’t push. You can see the hamster-wheel spin when you end those first coffee dates early and just go for the hug and cheek kiss. Never a problem getting day 2s.

  6. @ Infantry – For this test I removed almost all traces of provider. Again, it was only a 2% response, so I don’t know if that was the right move for this age group. We’ll see.

    @Magik – I use the same opener for all women of all ages. I have never tested different openers against different age groups. It was clear for this test that plenty of women were responding to my opener and looking at the profile, though I no longer track profile view rates since so many women turn that feature off.

  7. My wing keeps on talking about how your book has helped his online game, so I had to check you out. Definitely like your rational reasoning. I’m a believer!

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, enter your comment below. PLEASE make sure to read the commenting rules before commenting, since failure to follow these rules means your comment may be deleted. Also please do not use the username ‚ÄúAnonymous‚ÄĚ or ‚ÄúAnon‚ÄĚ or any variation thereof (makes things too confusing).

Off-topic comments are allowed, but Caleb will ignore those.

Caleb responds to comments in person, but he only does so on the two most current blog articles.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.