Review Detail

This is what I call a perfect program.
You can have just this program and be set for life.
Return to it again and again.
Gambler is a great interviewer, because we can see
that he catches stuff in the infield video that Yad might not catch
(or admit to...like Yad's using the "handshake routine" which he read in the forums, which ended up in the kiss close; and also that time he used NLP).

In Daygame Domination, listen to Yad.
He explains that his excellence comes from having
loads of "knowledge" of pick-up,
and implementing bits in the right places throughout the interaction.

The end goal: be natural. Of course.

Many say that the steps toward "being natural, authentic, and pure,"
is to discard all "artificial" method and just be honest and yourself.
Not even mentioning how unhelpful that advice is,
that is NOT how Yad became what we see today:
"natural, pure, and authentic."

You observe that he is calm, cool, collected,
"pure"...and you believe that is the method.
Authenticity.

That is not the method,
that is the expression of all the methods converging into a whole.
At worst, it's the end expression of years of application of method.

The question is, can you become like Yad without all the pick-up study that Yad went through? Learning about push-pull, learning routines, learning lines to challenge women, etc.
In other words, if Yad had spent the years pounding the streets hitting on chicks, WITHOUT METHOD, would he still have ended up a master at picking up women?
What we do know is that he spent years pounding the streets,
APPLYING CLASSICAL METHODS. These eventually became a part of him.
So it was theory plus practice--not just blind practice.

Playing a thousand games of chess doesn't make you a great chess player
(I think I read that in Tarasch's classic book on chess).
It's not just the practice, but the right practice.
My sensei used to say,
"Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent.
Only perfect practice makes perfect."

Many men who tried direct and concluded that it does not work
seemed to think that after just complimenting the girl or stating your interest, the girl would do the rest of the work, and you could just say, "So...what are you doing today?"

People often say, that "girls aren't stupid...they know you're not really looking for starbucks. They know you're hitting on them."
I strongly disagree (not that girls are stupid...the point about whether they know).

I've seen so many clueless girls it's ridiculous.
After fucking a girl or when I'm in a relationship,
I usually ask them about my approach,
their thoughts on it, and I try very hard to get honest answers from them. I also observe my girlfriends texting orbiters, and they never realize that the chode just wants some pussy.
The point is, I don't think I've ever heard a girl say that she knew I was "just hitting on her." Don't put the pussy on a pedestal, and stop giving women more credit than you give men. Women are obviously not smarter than men, and I also don't just nod my head when people say women are more "intuitive" than men.

I've had success with situational openers that led to SDL's
(same day lays).
For example, I once sidled up to a girl in the pet food aisle and I casually said,
"What are you doing?"
just as though we were friends who saw each other a few minutes ago.
She replied, "I'm looking for a collar for my dog...he keeps chewing through his collars."
A couple hours later she was in my bed fucking me.

Was that direct? Was that indirect?

My first words weren't, "You're so sexy girl...I wanna bend you over a barrel and show you the 50 states."
They weren't an elaborate opinion opener either.
Just "Whatcha doin'?"

Maybe we can define an opener as "direct" if it's a comment about the girl.
Problem with that is, then my trademarked opener,
"You're wearing your shoes on the wrong feet," becomes direct.

I wonder if hot guys have more success with direct openers and
average-looking guys succeed with indirect openers? Or vice versa.

Mystery's argument for the indirect opinion-opener was
so that you can go in 'under-the-radar'
before she has a chance to reject you.
That sounds clever and wise.
Especially in a club (I don't have experience in bars or clubs).
The disadvantage is that you may waste a long time having a nice chat with an unavailable woman.

Direct openers display that you're brave and masculine.
Indirect openers can also display high value, but of a different kind.
They display that you're socially intelligent, clever, creative, funny, charming, etc.

A number of guys (above) have said that they open direct, and then the girl says, "Thank you," and walks away.
Sinn has said, I think in his interview with Vin DiCarlo on Same Day Lays,
that, "Thank you," is a rejection. We clearly shouldn't think this,
since most of the closes I've seen Yad do (and Matrix and Yosha) got a "Thank you," at first. What else is she gonna say??!

Girls walk away after the direct opener,
then the men conclude that direct openers don't work.

In Daygame Domination, the girl walked away from Yad THREE TIMES saying
"Thank you but I really have to go."

Yad didn't move his feet as she walked away and he said things like,
"One more thing before you go..." and a few minutes later she was givings all kinds of IOI's
and asking about him and having a great conversation with him...
and then Yad ended up fucking her in the pussy.

Let that sink in.
In Daygame Domination,
the hot girl rejects Yad 3 times,
and then ends up mounting him.

This debate about direct/indirect is just distracting dick crack.

Anyway, it's been said that Yad isn't very direct. Sometimes, even in DD I think, he doesn't even say, "I thought you looked nice." He just stops her and says, "Excuse me," then makes a sexually neutral comment about her, for example, "I noticed you're just ambling down the street in your own little world." That's not direct...but it doesn't matter.

What you say first doesn't get the girl; how you act afterwards does.