Red Pill TheoryDon’t waste your time. When in doubt, force her to act or move on (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 1KissTheBridesmaid

This is very basic / beginner material, but spending some time in askTRP, I saw a lot of extensive descriptions of a particular girl’s behaviour, analyzing whether or not she is interested, wondering ‘what if’ etc.

This is a quick overview of some basic principles to avoid this type of over-analyzing and save you some time.

Always judge her by her actions. When in doubt, move on

This is very simple. If a girl flakes on you, doesn’t answer your texts, shows interest in another guy, the answer is always to move on. Her actions show that she doesn’t care.

Don’t waste your time dwelling on that one night she drunkenly made out with you or told you she wants to be with you but is just ‘emotionally unavailable’ at the moment. You will find yourself reaching for signs that she really does care for you. Maybe her phone was on silent? Maybe she was just trying to make you jealous? If this was really the case you would know it and would not be dwelling on it.

It is a bullshit rationalization because you are afraid to move on for fear of missing out on a great opportunity. Remember that she wants you to keep orbiting. She wants your free validation and she will continue to provide threads of hope for you to clutch on to.

When you move on, either way, you win. If she really is interested and just ‘playing games’, she will find a way to clearly express her interest. If she isn’t interested, you save yourself a lot of time and hassle. In addition to this, withdrawing your validation is a lot more likely to change her mind than continuing to pursue her. It shows abundance mentality and non-neediness.

Force her to act

If you understand the above and you still can’t make sense of her actions, it means you have not clearly and effectively expressed your intentions.

If you do not make your intentions clear to a girl, you won’t generate any actions to interpret.

As a man, it is your job to take the risk of getting rejected. You need to take action to find out if a woman is attracted to you or not. This is also known as ‘polarizing’.

Sitting around and wondering if a girl likes you or not and analyzing her behaviour is pointless if you have not polarized her. She may like you, but be too shy to express it. Maybe she is playing hard to get. Speculating on this is a waste of time.

Force her to act. Make a move. Ask her out on a date. Go in for the kiss. She will have to reciprocate or reject you. You have generated clear action that is easy to interpret.

Lessons learned:

Always judge her by her actions.

She will try to keep you around for validation, even if she is not interested.

It is better to move on than to continue to pursue if there are ‘mixed’ signals.

You need to ‘generate action’ by making your intentions clear.

TLDR: Always make your intentions clear. Judge a girl by her actions. When in doubt, move on.

EDIT: wants

[–]Endorsed ContributorMentORPHEUS 138 points139 points  (13 children)

Force her to act. Make a move. Ask her out on a date. Go in for the kiss. She will have to reciprocate or reject you. You have generated clear action that is easy to interpret.

An important part of an advertisment is the call to action. Response to an advertisement goes way up if some type of call to action is included. The same goes for marketing yourself to the opposite sex. Women will be more than happy to let you orbit and provide validation and goodies in exchange for implied future gains that they have no intention to deliver upon.

In my experience, NOTHING was ever preserved or gained by waiting for some idealized "right moment." An inexperienced young man can easily get sucked into a LONG Schrodinger's Relationship, wherein he's afraid to "ruin it" by opening the box and seeing if the cat is alive or not. Lesson learned: Open the damn box already!

[–]Batou_Red 23 points24 points  (0 children)

The analogy of Schrodinger's Relationship is perfect. A lot of my friends tend to get into a relationship where they feel guilty if they have to call upon their SO for some reason, whether it be an emergency. The view their relationship as so fragile that it could break if they ask their GF for anything at all. You need to know people's response to making your needs clear.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (10 children)

Another similar analogy is poker. It's often best to bet whether you have the goods or not, just to shut down your opponent and not allow him to see the next card without paying the price. Chances are you'll win the pot just by making the first move. Worst case scenario you get called or raised, but at least you know where you stand.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (9 children)

In low stakes, where you're dealing with below average players, this is a terrible strategy. In higher stakes, it depends.

[–]rpreader 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Yeah, you never want to bluff in low stakes. The people you're playing against don't know what they're doing and you'll lose money.

[–]theshiphaslanded 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a general strategy it's not good to bluff in low stakes as the most common mistake of low stakes players is calling too frequently.

The idea is to find out what level your opponents are thinking on (it'll tell you what mistakes they make most often), and then think one level above it (start betting for value with weaker hands if they make the mistake of calling too frequently).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

You can bluff once you build your "table image". An antagonistic asshole with a stack 3-4 times bigger than everyone else gets attention. They may not be smart but they recognize the chips gravitating towards you. The trick is to coax them into calling your "bluff" when you actually have a great hand.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Perhaps you believe this strategy works in low stakes, fair enough, however if you do some reading, you'll find, bluffing in low stakes is widely considered to be sub optimal in low stakes.

[–]PaulAJK -1 points0 points  (0 children)

True, your profit comes from betting good hands on all three streets at the micros. C-bets post flop are the exception.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Lol I see what you're saying. I think my definition of bluffing is confusing you. I don't play weak hands in the first place. Checking/calling is a weak move unless you're slow playing for a good reason. My thoughy process: If I intend to play a hand, then bet on all streets until I intend to fold. If the flop is garbage and you know your opponents range, chances are its garbage for them too. And if it's a scary board then chances are it's scary for them as well. If they hit their hand, then betting will control the pot giving you a chance to hit your hand. Worst case scenario they raise or jam, but then you know where you stand instead of getting into a dangerous situation by the river. I'm not great at explaining but it's been working for me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I've misunderstood you. We both agree we should bet intelligently. The reason I took the position I did, is because noobs will have read that and though 'bluffing is always good' and that's dangerous thinking.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I play micro stakes and do quite well these days. Obviously this is highly simplified for the audience here. But "first to the pot" is a strategy that's been written about in detail, and often times it's the right move. Especially in low stakes. The fish think "eh... what's 6 cents, I wanna see the turn card". Then hit them with another and they'll fold. You need to take the small pots and blinds to maintain your stack for the monster hands, and continually shutting people down will antagonize them into tilting when you actually hit a good hand, especially short stacked players. If you appear to only play logically, you'll be too transparent. This works for me, and I know it sounds like I play loose as hell, but I only play a very narrow range of hands.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bluffing in low stakes is a terrible strategy and it's been well written about. Low stakes players don't play at the level that, taking your possible hands into account, really influences their play.

Low stakes players pretty much focus on their hand. Therefore bluffing is a waste of time. Understanding the odds and playing them is optimal.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 60 points61 points  (21 children)

This is one of the key principles of Mark Manson's "Models":

Polarize early and often.

People, women included, will either like you or not. Figuring that out as quickly as possible saves you a lot of wasted time.

[–]Boovs4life 5 points6 points  (19 children)

But how do you figure it out? It's not like you can straight up ask them.

[–]1cmkinusn 26 points27 points  (13 children)

Action. You don't ask anything, would you ask "is this okay?" Before kissing, or would you just kiss her? Just do it, and deal with the aftermath after it happens.

[–][deleted] 15 points15 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]ancap13 4 points5 points  (10 children)

Thats law in California now, google yes means yes

[–][deleted] 19 points19 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 1 point2 points  (1 child)

If you have to ask if it's okay, then it's not okay.

Even if her answer was an implied "yes" before you asked.

[–]cpnurrenberg 0 points1 point