The Myth Of Flash Game

Dimitri, over at Real Social Impact (guess they haven’t picked a new name yet) has a good post up about something he calls "flash game."

Dimitri writes:
You go out
to the club. You just opened a girl then jumped into some routines,
gotten her laughing and giggling. You jokingly flirt with your wingman
like he’s your boyfriend. The girl touches you and you say “Hands off
the merchandise.” Everything’s going well… but then she leaves to
dance, or to see her friends, or… something, and you don’t see her
again.

That wouldn’t be too upsetting, but it’s the fourth set of the night.
That you lost like that. And your numbers aren’t panning out when you
get them.

What’s going on here?

There’s a style of game that gets guys into conversation and gets
reactions that are seemingly positive from women without getting you
real results. The problem is that it’s all flash… you’re not really
getting anywhere.

A solid interaction that leads to sex or a relationship usually doesn’t
look too impressive to onlookers. If they catch you opening her,
they’ll be impressed, but within a few minutes, you’ll look like old
friends catching up. A few minutes later and it’ll look like you’re her
boyfriend.

When Woodhaven introduced Natural Game, some thought it was called that
because it was a style used by “naturals” – Not the case. It’s called
Natural Game because it’s what women naturally respond to. It’s broken
down from successful seductions across the ages, and it works.

When you carry an interaction seductively, in a natural, cool way, you
get results. You get women. When you entertain, and be flashy, it looks
good if you’re trying to impress a guy nearby, but it doesn’t get real
results with the woman at nearly the frequency of a cool, natural
approach.

Some instructors demonstrate flash game to impress their students. It
impresses, too: If a guy has never gotten with a woman off a cold
approach, how would he know what a good interaction looks like? The
barrage of joking around, crazy routines, and flashy stuff looks like
just what the guy was missing: But it’s not.

How many approaches have you done without getting consistently good
results? Anyone who says you need 1000 approaches before you’re at all
good is full of shit: Flash game takes that long to get rolling because
it’s a poor formula. You’re trying to make bad game work okay (and
getting really bad habits in the process).

Flash game might be better than nothing. You’re going to get more
results spitting out ridiculous nonsense than you will sitting at home
eating potato chips. But if you’ve done even dozens of approaches and
you don’t feel like you’re getting further along each time, it’s time
to reanalyze your game. Flash game might look cool for your buddies,
but take it to the next level and start getting the women you want.

I agree with this this post 100%.  In fact, there’s one group of workshop people out there who rely COMPLETELY on flash game to wow their students without really being able to follow through with any of the women they interact with.  Flash game can be quite an easy pitfall to trip into when you’re first starting out.

I’d also like to expand on Dimitri’s take a bit and say that Flash Game is also about having a set of memorized routines or patterns, with no real knowledge of how to interact with others.  Whenever you’re talking to a girl and you get to a point where you don’t know what to say or where to take it, that’s Flash Game too.  You’ve only prepared yourself up to a certain point, and you burn out quick.

Though I do think routines are good to know, if you don’t know how to relate to others and interact with them on a basic social level, you’re never going to get more than that initial reaction from the women you talk to.