It seems like those pursuing a short-term strategy with women and those pursuing a long-term strategy have both been able to embrace the redpill. This is great, but it seems the only distinction made between the two, has been that long-term strategy is about being just as alpha, but allowing some beta tendencies to come into play to help the bonding. This is not nuanced enough.

I think the advice above for inner game is spot-on, but there are actually distinct SMV increasing strategies that are more beneficial towards long-term relationship and less useful for short-term conquests respectively or vice versa.

I think the major two extreme different strategies are pursuing Looks versus pursuing Money. Other SMV increasing traits like Status, Humor, Social Proof, fall somewhere in-between, so its most instructive to look at the extremes.

Looks are most effective for a short-term strategy. This has been empirically proven. They are the biggest criteria for one-night stands. But they are actually very low on the list of a woman looking for a long-term relationship, which is why in surveys you'll see women rate looks at something very low like #7, below humour, kindness, etc. (I know knowledge about women is usually wrong, but it has a tinge of truth viewed in a certain light)

Money is very effective in a long-term strategy. We all know the stereotype of a rich, old guy scoring a knockout girl. And we all know girls love doctors, lawyers, etc. But as the PUA and redpill community has picked up very quickly, money has almost 0 effect in a club/bar. Buying bottles and tables will actually repel girls.

Now the redpill advocates improving both. Work out, and work on your career. This is great and I think every man should pursue a baseline in both. Workout to a low bf% and so that you've got the v-shape and maybe some abs, or have a career that'll at least support the lifestyle you want.

But, once you reach baseline, it is best to pick one or the other for your strategy. This is because there are increasing returns to increasing how good-looking you are, or how rich you are. We all know with hypergamy, the bottom 60-80% of men are invisible. This means the higher up you move, you will get exponentially more women (up to of course, a ridiculously high point. Ex. Between Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt its not about who is better looking, but the type of girl who likes artistic/deep versus rugged. Similarly, once you're past 100 million, you're not much different than someone at 200 million)

I think a part of this is because of status. Being a pretty well-off guy and ripped is great, you'll do just fine. But putting in the effort to be the best-looking guy in all your social circles will you get exponentially more pussy, even if your career is non-existent. Likewise, making 20k more than your buddies is not that impressive, but being a millionaire among blue-collar/white-collar middle class friends allows you to live a totally different lifestyle.

Now to finally come to the point I think is interesting, after I read this article: http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/how_do_you_create_an_elite_athlete

In deciding which strategy you pick, short-term or long-term, you need to consider what hand you're dealt. There are certain genetics that help you a long way in short-term strategy, ex. Height, symmetrical face, etc. There are certain genetics that help you a long way in long-term strategy, ex. intelligence, impulse control, grit, etc.

Society likes to say if you just work hard you can be successful. This is TRUE. You can be 70 percentile I believe if you work hard, in ANYTHING, because most people are lazy and if you're reading this you're living in the first world. So don't take this post as discouraging anyone. That's the last thing I want to do.

But genetics can play a very large part in the upper echelon, which is where you want to be to get the effect of exponential returns. For example, the gist of the article is that genetics play a huge part in athletics. He was a college athlete, who had trained all his life. They measured his stats, VO2 or something. They went around and found 2000 college individuals who had ZERO training, not even light training. They found 6 of these individuals could run at the same capacity he could despite ZERO training. If these individuals put in some work, they would improve their VO2 higher than he could have ever done despite years of training. Within a few months these individuals could be a better athlete than he could ever hope to be. Also is the old football saying "you can't train speed".

And his word of advice for success was to find a field that fits your talents. For example, he said that in Jamaica, all the young kids want to be sprinters. Sprinters get all the glory. With an eye for talent, he noticed some of the kids had the perfect bodies for longer distance running like 400m, 800M, but these kids still only trained and competed for the 100M. These kids could never be good enough sprinters to go to the Olympics, they would always be very good sprinters, but not the best, but they might have been the best long-distance runners in the world if they had matched their careers with their talents.

Again, I don't want to discourage anyone. I think everyone should be able to reach 70% in looks and career. After that though you should try to get as close to 99% as you can until you're happy with your SMV and life.