Julien RSD says he still gets rejected 'all the time'.

On 'full night infields' in products i've seen people like Max strike out like 15 times in a row before pulling a girl.

I saw an infield of the famous 'mystery' where he was getting blown out by hot young college girls! he eventually done well with a girl later on, but she was much older.

On seddit there seems to be 2 groups; those who think it's all about 'game' and that you can get any girl with it, and those who think that she needs to be 'into you' on some level (basically your looks) BEFORE you can 'amplify' that attraction through game (basically the idea that game can't 'create' attraction in someone)

What confuses me is that sometimes people from the 1st group (it's all about game) give the explanation that 'she just wasn't into you. Next!' when someone gets rejected after running 'good game'. HOw can that be? Aren't they basically agreeing with the 2nd group? By saying 'she just wasn't into you' i take that as meaning 'she didn't think you were handsome enough and so 'game' was never given a chance to work''

And that brings me to why pro PUA's still get rejected a fair bit.

If they pull a girl they say it was due to game. If they get rejected the next 5 sets, they say ''she just wasn't into me. Can't win them all''. Isn't that a bit of a cop out? If they want to stand by their theory, shouldn't they attribute their failure to 'game' aswell? So, something like ''on that occasion, that particular girl must have required 10/10 game and my game is only 9/10''