Post: #1

Originally posted on my blog.

Some guys call it double texting. Others call it re-initiating. My preferred word is "respawning" (credit to my 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 or Alex Vilenchik from Playing With Fire, advocate following up with cold leads via text several days after they've stopped responding. JMULV recommends doing this three times total 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.

Post: #2

It works best on women you've actually met and spent time with, otherwise it's SPAM and nobody gives a shit about anonymous/faceless SPAM.

Do you care about SPAM?

Post: #3

Yeah, I looked only at respawns before the first meet.

However, you did bring up an interesting point: typically I won't respawn after meeting a girl for the first time, because I feel like if she doesn't respond to the initial post-date text it's a very clear sign she's not interested.

Perhaps I should start double-triple texting girls I've met up with once to try to get them out again or secure repeat bangs.

Post: #4

(10-20-2018 09:02 PM)corsega Wrote:  Originally posted on my blog.


[*]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.

HI man,
Thank you for the data. I have a question regarding the date confirmation . I read and heard we should set definite plans . If she gives "maybe" or "let me check" , we do the takeaway.

What do you think ?
Part of me believes this advice . Another part of me says she might talk about it with her girl friends, maybe she has a boyfriend and she wants to make sure he is out to town,....etc.

Post: #5

Sending a restart text is very very small amount of effort.

Even if its a 1% conversion rate from random chance (shes bored, just got dumped, horny, whatever) its still worth 10 seconds of your time to take a shot.

Post: #6

Interesting data, props to you for compiling. A few thoughts.

(10-21-2018 11:29 AM)corsega Wrote:  However, you did bring up an interesting point: typically I won't respawn after meeting a girl for the first time, because I feel like if she doesn't respond to the initial post-date text it's a very clear sign she's not interested.

I agree with this. Even in our ADD society, its basic social norm to txt back after a date if you want to keep it going. If you've already been on a date with a girl and she doesn't answer your text, she almost surely isn't interested.

(10-20-2018 09:02 PM)corsega Wrote:  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.

I see what you're saying, but that "true" framework that you're going by is WAY too rigid and doesn't really make sense logically. To me, both the first and second example are clear restarts; the other two basically are as well. The girl didn't answer, so you hit her up again, and eventually fucked her. Just because it doesn't fit that framework directly doesn't mean that its an invalid observation.

(10-21-2018 05:04 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Sending a restart text is very very small amount of effort.

Even if its a 1% conversion rate from random chance (shes bored, just got dumped, horny, whatever) its still worth 10 seconds of your time to take a shot.

THIS. Your time is valuable, but 10 seconds isn't exactly a lot of time. And 10 seconds might actually be overstating it. Your 350 restarts took up a grand total of less than an hour over the course of several years.

I don't have any specific data to offer since I don't track this sort of stuff, but I can remember two bangs from restart texts.

1) Girl I matched off Tinder, got #, txtd back and forth, and she flaked on date last minute saying her car broke down and then ghosted. I hit her back again with a direct/humorous comment, she came out on a datem and on the second date we had sex. I asked her afterwards if her car had actually broken down and she said that it did, and she felt embarassed afterwards to text me since she felt bad about flaking. Maybe full of shit but who knows.

2) Girl I met at a club, had good rapport and made out, but she then bailed with friends. I texted her my typical txt and got no answer. Hit her up again about meeting up at night, she happened to be in the area, we met out and went home together. Never asked why she didn't answer me initially but her phone had dozens of texts, so maybe she just didn't notice.

For me, its worth a restart if you feel like you and the chick were vibing and that there's something there to be salvaged. Hard to put a rigid framework on it, just something that you should have with experience. And for restarts while on Tinder, those are super low-probability, but you can send them while you take a shit. Not really high effort.

Post: #7

By the way, I like the term "respawn". Makes it all more fun.

Post: #8

(10-21-2018 05:24 PM)RDF Wrote:  Interesting data, props to you for compiling. A few thoughts.

(10-21-2018 11:29 AM)corsega Wrote:  However, you did bring up an interesting point: typically I won't respawn after meeting a girl for the first time, because I feel like if she doesn't respond to the initial post-date text it's a very clear sign she's not interested.

I agree with this. Even in our ADD society, its basic social norm to txt back after a date if you want to keep it going. If you've already been on a date with a girl and she doesn't answer your text, she almost surely isn't interested.

(10-20-2018 09:02 PM)corsega Wrote:  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.

I see what you're saying, but that "true" framework that you're going by is WAY too rigid and doesn't really make sense logically. To me, both the first and second example are clear restarts; the other two basically are as well. The girl didn't answer, so you hit her up again, and eventually fucked her. Just because it doesn't fit that framework directly doesn't mean that its an invalid observation.

(10-21-2018 05:04 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Sending a restart text is very very small amount of effort.

Even if its a 1% conversion rate from random chance (shes bored, just got dumped, horny, whatever) its still worth 10 seconds of your time to take a shot.

THIS. Your time is valuable, but 10 seconds isn't exactly a lot of time. And 10 seconds might actually be overstating it. Your 350 restarts took up a grand total of less than an hour over the course of several years.

I don't have any specific data to offer since I don't track this sort of stuff, but I can remember two bangs from restart texts.

1) Girl I matched off Tinder, got #, txtd back and forth, and she flaked on date last minute saying her car broke down and then ghosted. I hit her back again with a direct/humorous comment, she came out on a datem and on the second date we had sex. I asked her afterwards if her car had actually broken down and she said that it did, and she felt embarassed afterwards to text me since she felt bad about flaking. Maybe full of shit but who knows.

2) Girl I met at a club, had good rapport and made out, but she then bailed with friends. I texted her my typical txt and got no answer. Hit her up again about meeting up at night, she happened to be in the area, we met out and went home together. Never asked why she didn't answer me initially but her phone had dozens of texts, so maybe she just didn't notice.

For me, its worth a restart if you feel like you and the chick were vibing and that there's something there to be salvaged. Hard to put a rigid framework on it, just something that you should have with experience. And for restarts while on Tinder, those are super low-probability, but you can send them while you take a shit. Not really high effort.

Always remember girls are afraid of rejection way more than the guys.

Post: #9

(10-21-2018 05:04 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Sending a restart text is very very small amount of effort.

Even if its a 1% conversion rate from random chance (shes bored, just got dumped, horny, whatever) its still worth 10 seconds of your time to take a shot.

(10-21-2018 05:24 PM)RDF Wrote:  THIS. Your time is valuable, but 10 seconds isn't exactly a lot of time. And 10 seconds might actually be overstating it. Your 350 restarts took up a grand total of less than an hour over the course of several years.

I don't have any specific data to offer since I don't track this sort of stuff, but I can remember two bangs from restart texts.

1) Girl I matched off Tinder, got #, txtd back and forth, and she flaked on date last minute saying her car broke down and then ghosted. I hit her back again with a direct/humorous comment, she came out on a datem and on the second date we had sex. I asked her afterwards if her car had actually broken down and she said that it did, and she felt embarassed afterwards to text me since she felt bad about flaking. Maybe full of shit but who knows.

2) Girl I met at a club, had good rapport and made out, but she then bailed with friends. I texted her my typical txt and got no answer. Hit her up again about meeting up at night, she happened to be in the area, we met out and went home together. Never asked why she didn't answer me initially but her phone had dozens of texts, so maybe she just didn't notice.

For me, its worth a restart if you feel like you and the chick were vibing and that there's something there to be salvaged. Hard to put a rigid framework on it, just something that you should have with experience. And for restarts while on Tinder, those are super low-probability, but you can send them while you take a shit. Not really high effort.

It looks like a small amount of effort, but there are more costs than you think. Being in sales, I'm hyper-aware of a lot of this because I use it when figuring out when to abandon my leads as well. There are "switching costs" when moving from your current task to the act of sending a respawn. There is clutter in your text messages from sending the respawn. There's mental energy expended thinking about the text you sent.

Of course, every guy has to weigh those costs against the potential benefits, but my hypothesis is that we overweight the benefits versus the costs due to loss aversion.

RDF, appreciate you providing more datapoints. I'm beginning to see a trend here: the more a girl invests in you, the more worth it it is to send a respawn.

Take my example of matching a girl on Tinder over and over, and your examples of a girl liking you enough to agree to a date, and a girl liking you enough to make out with you, versus just getting a daygame number and following up a non-response initial text with a ping.

Post: #10

Why is this even a debate, ofcourse you should do it. This is the lowest effort approach possible. You can borderline automate this these days. Have a preset "respawn", mark up your leads and mass text them once every few weeks. What do you have to lose.

I banged girls I've never met this way, as well as ones that didnt reply after a first date.

Post: #11

(10-22-2018 07:16 PM)finalstep Wrote:  Why is this even a debate, ofcourse you should do it. This is the lowest effort approach possible. You can borderline automate this these days. Have a preset "respawn", mark up your leads and mass text them once every few weeks. What do you have to lose.

I banged girls I've never met this way, as well as ones that didnt reply after a first date.

Um, let's see, making yourself look like a joke to both herself and her friends who she will tell, and fucking up your chance of gaming her again if you randomly come across in her person again, which is a hell of a lot more likely than her responding after 2 unanswered texts.

But this ties into why most guys are connecting on Instagram early, easier to reattach her from interesting pics than a string of unanswered texts.

Post: #12

(10-22-2018 07:38 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 07:16 PM)finalstep Wrote:  Why is this even a debate, ofcourse you should do it. This is the lowest effort approach possible. You can borderline automate this these days. Have a preset "respawn", mark up your leads and mass text them once every few weeks. What do you have to lose.

I banged girls I've never met this way, as well as ones that didnt reply after a first date.

Um, let's see, making yourself look like a joke to both herself and her friends who she will tell, and fucking up your chance of gaming her again if you randomly come across in her person again, which is a hell of a lot more likely than her responding after 2 unanswered texts.

I think "The Rat" thread shows why it doesn't matter and people could take themselves less seriously.

I've done some glorious fails via text, real cringe worthy stuff and got action out of it sometimes months later. And I KNOW they would have shown other people which is what made me cringe in hind sight.

Other people honestly don't care as much as one does in their own head.

Post: #13

Agreed with JackinMelbourne, I honestly don't care what a girl thinks if I double/triple text. This city is too big and girls have too many options to even notice/care. They probably just archive the texts and forget about it in a month.

My qualm is not with how it "looks" to the girl, it's providing data on actual effectiveness versus mental and physical work.

Post: #14

SMS restart texts are ineffective. You've been out of sight out of mind for a while, she might not even remember you.

If you're on social media where you have been showing consistent value and you restart, it's extremely effective. You've bought yourself more time to show value in her eyes.

It's very hard for you to win long term if your competition is value building on her stories everyday. A target market for the forum, 18-23 year old women, is on their phones on so many social media apps all day. Guys this age can outgame older guys, because they have been on social media since they were young boys, and understand the online dynamics better.

Post: #15

It's a fact fresh leads are better than stale leads, they're much more likely to be fruitful. Strike while the iron is hot. It's not just initial attraction but after a certain amount of time passes girls invent reasons why it didn't work out between you. You'll get better at feeling which ones are more likely to get the bang from with experience, keep going.

Post: #16

I agree that double texting is just a waste of time; because, as many said before, the amount of options for a woman reduces her interest to restart an old attraction. The only situation that works is as you run into them in person somewhere and there you are game, but it doesn't depend at all on you.

Post: #17

I'm with Rat. It's low cost to you. Also, she gave you her number at some point so this is a population that is preselect Ed to like you; so it's better than most other approaches you could otherwise do. Finally, it always helps your numbers to get more stuff bats. It also can improve your psychology because for me when I spam I can more easily detatch myself from any result. Most texts should fail and if any hook that is a bonus

Post: #18

It also helps if you include a flattering picture in your respawn text. I've definitely banged girls like this... how many, no idea, but its definitely a low conversion %.

Post: #19

Most girls I've dated have re-dated someone they went cold on at first, at least once.