Boy haircuts

Making this post because almost every “give me advice on my dating profile/pics” post could use this advice.
But basically, a lot of you lack what I would call a “masculine edge” to your appearance, or at least that’s how it comes across via pics.
And when I mentioned “masculine edge” (from here I’ll just call it “edge”), a few of you asked what I meant, so I’m making this post to answer everybody who asked.
But basically – you want to look like a guy that actually gets p*ssy.
Believe it or not, if you’re trying to f*ck a lot, you have to look like… somebody that actually f*cks.
But as it stands, a lot of you look way too “smiley” or “nice” for online dating like Tinder, etc.
Like your pics look like what you would make your Linkedin picture or something, as opposed to pics used to meet chicks.
If Linkedin and/or boyfriend pics are what you’re going for, so be it. But I doubt that strategy is leading to many matches or dates. (Hence why you’re posting on here for advice)
Also, let’s be real – whatever the dating app is, it’s basically all Tinder (hooking up).
I never go on a dating app and think, “oh yeah, I’m definitely gonna meet *the one* here”. Girls on dating apps have been around the block, or are about to go around it.
Even a girl who’s a “5” or a “6” is FLOODED with messages on dating apps, IG, etc. compared to the average guy who’s not getting shit. Don’t believe me? If you ever get the chance, ask to see a girl’s inbox. Any girl can have new d*ck THAT DAY on one of these apps, probably even within the hour.
Relevant to the above – a skill that every man needs is the ability to differentiate between:

1. Girls you f*ck
2. Girls you want to get serious with

Most girls on apps (but also everywhere in today’s world) are gonna fall in category 1. Just the way the world works.
I guess if anything, meeting a lot of chicks (from apps or otherwise) is good experience to increase your ability to find the rare girl from category 2.
So now that we have established that dating apps are mostly for hooking up, and that in order to hook up, you need to have some edge about you, let’s talk about how to actually get some edge in your pics.
Take a look at this picture:
​
https://preview.redd.it/5350ru2q724b1.png?width=300&format=png&auto=webp&s=4c6d8edbdf14efacc51fb2dfad2b1d7bd66e103b
Shit haircut, whatever clothes, just a normal, if not nerdy looking “random Asian dude”.
But that’s Jay Park when he was younger.
Of course you all know Jay Park now:
​
https://preview.redd.it/fubc1xms724b1.png?width=858&format=png&auto=webp&s=7791607ba4ba108ac58196cbcd0dd09a3af8a731
Forget the fact that he’s a world famous celebrity for a second.
Imagine you saw the first guy – what would you think?
Or imagine that first guy was on Tinder, Hinge, etc. Do you think he would get matches?
Of course not.
The second guy though – it’s CLEAR that he has “edge”, or that he f*cks. He’s clearly not the kind of guy that swipes Tinder all day so that he can take 5/10s on 10 dates just to get friend-zoned.
The look in his eyes, the hair, the piercings, the standout shirt, the tattoos, other accessories like necklace and bracelets.
^ These are all things that the average, boring guy does NOT have.
Or even this guy I found after searching “fuccboi before after”:
​
Credit: Jimmy Zhang
The guy on the left is exactly what I mean when I say “too smiley” – he just looks like a boring, nice guy geek.
While the guy on the right could use a better pose in terms of his face, just the piercings, necklace, tattoos, and abs give him a TOTALLY different vibe/image.
If you want to rack up the numbers, you need to lean more towards BAD BOY than you do “Another Asian guy with a decent job but nothing interesting about him”
Here are some things you can implement:
- Get ripped – obvious one. Preferably show off your body in a cool way. Like doing MMA or something. Example:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cs8h2issy5s/
- Cool haircut – see the before/after of Jay Park above. No offense but a lot of you look like the before. Not gonna go into too much detail here, since there’s a post about hair every day.
- Tattoos – good for chicks but also, depending on the tattoo, could lead to less people trying to fuck with you (racism). I’m not even heavily tatted and girls will pretty much always ask what the tattoos mean and shit. Girls are into hippie shit like that – tattoos, horoscopes, palm reading, MBTI, etc. So for tats ideally 1) they make you look sexy 2) have some “deep” meaning 3) make you look more intimidating and less like a hate crime target. But for the purposes of this post, at least #1
- Edgy style e.g. leather jackets, ripped jeans, etc. - I don’t know if stuff like leather jackets, ripped jeans, etc. are still “in” where you guys live. But back in the day, I would wear shit like that and it was comical how girls would automatically say stuff like “ooh, I like your style”, “ooh, I like your pants”, and shit like that. Like it was a cheat code and they were conditioned to like it (probably thanks to media influence). Little did they know that shit was some cheap shit from Zara.
Even if the kinds of clothes I listed aren’t cool anymore, the point is – wear stuff that makes it looks like you actually get it in with chicks.
- Accessories – rings, necklaces/chains, bracelets/watches, piercings – boring nice guys don’t accessorize. As a bonus, depending on the accessory, they can be a conversation startekeep the convo flowing like tats.
- Facial hair – if you can grow it, especially if you have a weak jawline (and have already done stuff like lose bodyfat to maximize your jawline).
Note the difference that facial hair can make:
​
https://preview.redd.it/99ddzhph824b1.png?width=960&format=png&auto=webp&s=3db307cd9370f1d5886b178255f768a9447d9f6a
(Though I would advise against facial hair depending on your target audience. Like most Asian girls from Asia seem to like clean cut)
- Pics with girls - don't overdo it, and I'd say for certain kinds of girls (e.g. Asian girls from Asia) this can work against you. But for e.g. girls in the US, it can be good. Get like 1-2 pics with preferably hot chicks, even if you guys are just friends
Maybe controversial but great example pic by Andrew Tate:
​
https://preview.redd.it/6vlgq6wba24b1.png?width=450&format=png&auto=webp&s=f8f258b8a05d29d25cbfccabaff5736d77e31b19
This list doesn’t cover everything but the overarching principle is:
Will this make me look like someone that actually gets girls?
For more inspiration, look at IG, Tiktok, or any site or app that’s mainly visuals focused with a lot of chicks using it. Find profiles of guys that you could emulate (preferably without feeling too fake or try-hard) with chicks thirsting in the comments
Also just try and pick up on things from guys IRL who you know get lots of girls. For example, how they look, talk, carry themselves, present themselves online, etc.
You'll probably notice they lean towards "bad boy" or edgy. These kinds of guys are the ones getting all the girls.
You probably already know this from growing up, going to school, being at work, and noticing things about guys who actually get lots of chicks.
But if you don’t, here are some reasons why the edgy-looking guys are getting the girls on apps (or otherwise), and you aren’t:

1. They look confident and probably aren’t afraid of:

- standing out
- saying what’s on their mind
- comfortable in their masculinity/sexuality
- are likely to show the girl a good time
- fuck her good
- etc.
2) They actually look like they get chicks like I’ve mentioned. Believe it or not – girls want a guy who KNOWS WHAT HE’S DOING, especially if they’re just looking to have fun. If you’re just some boring guy taking Linkedin smiley pictures and posting them on dating apps, girls will just think you’re boring and probably have no experience with girls.
^ girls would rather be with the cool guy that has multiple chicks, then settle for some nice guy loser who is boring and doesn’t bring much to the table. Harsh but true.
In a way, giving women the freedom to choose their own partner was the worst thing to happen to your average guy in terms of dating and relationships.
Because if a girl can be with whatever guy she wants, why would she choose some average/below average guy, if she can get the above average/elite guy?
3) Edgy-looking guys are probably cooler, actually have friends, actually have a life.
And the thing is – when you look kind of “bad” or edgy – you can actually get away with being nice more, while not looking like a total simp. That is, your “nice” actions have more impact because it can be unexpected or seem out of character.
I call this kind of thing “contrast game”, and for whatever reason, it drives a lot of girls crazy.
I’ve had multiple girls say stuff like “you look like a party boy [or fuccboi], but you’re also really nice and actually thoughtful/intellectual”
When an edgy guy opens up and shows his “nice” side, this makes a girl feel special because the girl assumes that he doesn’t do that for anyone.
And being Asian, you can really ramp up the “edge” without it being a huge negative. People already assume that you’re a good guy, probably got a good job, potential boyfriend material, etc.
As a counter-example, Black guys kind of have the opposite stereotype working against them. Like girls might think they’re dangerous and shit because of media influence. Therefore, they can actually benefit by looking “more nice”.
I actually used to go out in NY with a Black guy during my wannabe pickup artist days. My approach then (and somewhat now) was very direct and “in your face”.
When I did it, it was kind of a novelty for the chicks. (This was like 10 years ago, before Korean shit got really big, so basically the main image people had of Asian dudes was that we were dorks).
Whereas when my Black buddy tried going up to girls the way that I was (super direct), a lot were actually freaking out and screaming.
(In reality, he was a totally good guy with a much better job than me. But unfortunately prejudice and racism – mostly thanks to negative media influence – affects all POC, but in different ways).
Anyway, in summary:
If your girl is to hook up with a ton of chicks from dating apps, you need to present yourself as a guy that actually hooks up with a ton of chicks from dating apps. And not boring Asian guy programmer #9999
Another thing to keep in mind:
Online stuff is ALL ABOUT THE PICS and looks.
If you don’t look like THE MAN online, do not expect to get crazy results.
As mentioned, girls are getting bombarded with messages on these apps, which are complete sausage fests. For example, Tinder is 75% dudes.
I recommend not relying on solely dating apps to meet girls.
Offline stuff like social circle, nightlife, etc. give you more of an opportunity to show what you’re about via body language, tonality, all that stuff.
And if you do end up getting good pics, you should focus more on IG than dating apps anyway.
Lastly, I know a lot of you guys are probably naturally on the nicer side, have professional jobs, etc.
While trying to “up your edge”, try to be as congruent to your natural personality as possible. You don’t want to come across as try hard or fake. People, especially girls, can sense that shit from a mile away
Like I consider myself a nice guy, but I definitely have a bit of a degenerate streak. So some of the fuccboi stuff makes more sense for me.
Anyway, hope this post helps somebody.

Recommend me anything especially things that aren’t in this realm of genres

I've been involved in a number of discussions with folks who follow the market and are confused by what is happening. And who wouldn't be confused? Half the country says inflation is rapidly declining, while the other half says it's rising. Half say public companies are crushing earnings estimates, while the other half says earnings are abysmal. Hell, we can't even get a straight narrative out of the Federal Reserve Board Members, where half of them think rates are high enough, and the other thinks they need to hike more. Everyone speaks about the future in bizarre neutered language so as not to accidentally scare people, leaving us with word salads filled with "skip not pause", "immaculate disinflation", and whatever the hell JPOW says during his press conferences when he's trying to avoid saying the word recession.
The bulls and the bears have been locked in a battle of narratives for the entire year of 2023, where bank failures, sticky core (but declining headline) inflation numbers, and a tight labor market were lobbed back and forth as the SPX danced around 4200. The 4200 level on the S&P 500 is symbolic. It was the point at which JPOW emerged from Jackson's Hole to smite the bulls in August of 2022 in an effort to tighten liquidity and control inflation. We have been dancing around 4200 for two years now. It has become the "no man's land" between the trenches in this colossal financial war.
And on Thursday and Friday June 2nd 2023, the bulls decisively crossed 4200 in a full frontal attack, smiting the bears and declaring fiscal victory. The bears cried wolf too many times, inflation is solved, the economy is rocking, and now the bulls just took the bears' lunch money and gave them swirlies in the girls bathroom.
However, I'm going to lay out a case--based on data and market mechanics--to say not only that the battle isn't over, but that the bulls are being loaded up with the fattest bag in 3 years.
The Macro Situation
To make my case, I have to start with some macroeconomics surrounding inflation. I think it's well accepted that the Federal Reserve--taking lessons from the inflation batter in the 1970's--considers entrenched inflation to be more dangerous to our economy than a recession. Indeed, JPOW has said this many times in his FOMC pressers. Tightening too little is worse than tightening too much. Although it appears that the media has a bias toward pushing the "inflation cooling" narrative, implying the Fed will pause or even begin cutting rates this year, I would like to quickly dispel this myth.
First, wages. The Federal Reserve of Atlanta wage growth tracker shows that wages are sticky at 6% YoY. This is consistent with the stubbornly tight unemployment rate, which has essentially been flat near 3.5% throughout the inflation saga (albeit the most recent data came in at 3.7% but it may be noise).
Second, inflation. There are many measures and certainly people like to choose the flavor that confirms their bias. Let's look at the PCE inflation that the Fed has signaled they are weighing heavily. Headline PCE rose in April from 4.2% to 4.4% YoY. Core PCE, which excludes food and energy, has been flat since December of 2022 at essentially 4.6%. When you dig down into the details, it's hard to deny that a lot of the high inflation from last year was driven by high energy prices, and vise versa this year. Without the tailwind of low energy prices, our core inflation would likely be even higher. Regardless, inflation is at best sticky, and at worst slowly rising again. No bueno.
Third, corporate financials. Although the labor market is strong, the megacap tech companies that are currently holding up the markets are struggling financially, although they have done well hiding that fact. Revenues are down 10-20% (or more!) YoY for many of these companies, and their margins are shrinking. They are currently attempting to hide some of this by repurchasing shares to boost EPS, issuing bonds to stay liquid (META issued 40 year bonds YIKES!), etc. You know, all the tricks that can be played. Banks are still sitting on a load of underwater bonds and bills that creates a significant liquidity risk and caused 4 US banks to fail. They are currently being propped up with liquidity from the Federal Reserve, but for a steep fee. What narrative do all of these struggling companies have in common? So long as rates don't stay high for too long, we can smooth out the bumps with accounting tricks, layoffs, haircuts, etc. It comes as no surprise then that the financial media posts some eye-rolling levels of spin to try and push the Fed pause story. Almost as if they can will it into existence just by saying it enough times (If you say Volcker in your mirror three times he magically appears and refinances your mortgage rate to 20%). Everyone needs the rates to go down. Now. If we don't start getting pauses or skips or cuts or whatever, all of those happy, rosy Q3 and Q4 earnings projections are going directly in the toilet (we are all looking at you NVIDIA).
Although all the bears cried wolf dozens of times in 2022, given this macro backdrop, it doesn't appear possible for the Fed to pause or cut rates this year, and will likely have to go to 5.5-6.0% rates or even higher to successfully tamp down inflation. Yes, this will crush corporate financials and likely cause a recession. We are dangerously close to being in a recession already. The bull argument to 2023 is that inflation is cooling and labor remains strong, so rates can come down and save everyone. Unfortunately, the data does not support the cooling inflation narrative. Although I once was hopeful a soft landing was possible, I have since changed my view to be that our own irrational exuberance demands a hard landing, as nothing else will rip our credit cards out of our hands. In the face of increased aggregate demand, someone has to hold the inflation bag.
You might be thinking: "alright Mr. smarty pants, if we are on the brink of recession then why are people piling money into the equity markets?!?!" Well read on...
The Sneaky Long
Most people think of the stock market as simply a place to invest in businesses, provide them capital, and be rewarded by the growth of that business. In reality, most of the activity on the stock market has nothing to do with this goal, but is instead aimed at allowing large entities to manipulate prices to serve their interests at the expense of "dumb money." After all, what do micro-second high frequency trading, options, ETFs, dark pools, naked shorting, etc have to do with giving money to businesses to grow? You could certainly make a case for many of these things in niche applications. But are options a niche application, for example, when an estimated $1-3T worth of equivalent shares are traded each day with 0 day to expiration options (keeping in mind the total market cap of the US equity market is $40T)?
In reality, most of the stock market was not built to ease corporate capital raising endeavors, but to allow the largest investors to move extremely large amounts of shares with dramatically exploding or crushing the price of stock. When you buy or sell a few shares, you can easily purchase them at about the current price of the stock. But what if you want to buy 1M shares? If you put in a market order for 1M shares, the stock price could explode 10x or more during the time it takes you to purchase the first share and the last. You'd probably get more than one trading halt in the process. The same thing happens to the downside when you want to sell a 5-20% stake in a company. Now what if you wanted to unload 5-20% of the whole market? This would simply result in a market crash, and you would get pennies on the dollar for your shares. Even bleeding the position out over months could provide enough downward pressure to trigger a mass selloff anyway. So how the f*** do you actually get rid of those shares?
The answer to this is: options, ETFs, dark pools, etc! These market instruments provide "liquidity." Put simply, liquidity is trading volume. The more trading volume that is occuring at a given price, the more you can buy or sell at that price without changing it. More trading = more liquidity. This is actually the primary purpose of retail investors for institutions, and why a quarter of our lives are reliant on participating in this system. You are liquidity. Your pension, 401k (which is probably all ETFs, not by accident), and your personal trading account. This infrastructure to link you to the market is for the sole purpose of accumulating the bags that institutions slowly amass over time.
So how might institutions use these tools to sell equities without crashing the market, say, in a macroeconomic environment where a crash is likely coming? Wouldn't it be great if you could sell the top, wait for the crash, and buy the bottom? Yes! And I'm proposing that is what is occurring now, and likely what occurs before every market crash (except volmageddon. you could tell that was a surprise to the big boys because they changed the rules of the market to prevent it from happening again). Currently, it appears that the strategy relies heavily on index options, primarily on the SPX. To understand how we need to describe some market mechanics.
The Option to Take your Money
the primary mechanism is market maker hedging. A market maker is an entity that has promised to take the other side of every trade for an instrument in an effort to provide liquidity. So if I want to sell an option, I don't need to find a buyer, I just sell it to the market maker. He will either find a buyer and net out the trade on his books that way, or he will hedge that position. If I sell the market maker a put option, the market maker is now short the underlying. The market maker just wants to make money on transactions, he doesn't want to take on directional risk. To hedge that short risk, they will buy shares (or futures in the case of index options) to stay "delta neutral." Staying neutral is complicated, but market makers are constantly trading throughout the day as options are traded and prices move to maintain this delta neutrality. As a result, a large amount of volume flow in the market is just hedging. If someone were to buy and sell enough options, then eventually the price of the underlying would be controlled by options and not conventional trading. The nice thing is that options give you leverage, effectively allowing you to dictate lots of trading volume without putting up enormous sums of money.
Do you see where this is headed? What if I could sell options to a market maker, and force them to take the other side of the trade? Then I could slowly over time unload a lot of shares without dropping the price. Then at the end of the process, just let the remaining sold options expire, releasing the market maker from his purgatory of perpetual buying, and then allowing the market to plummet in the absence of any remaining large buyers in the market. This is one of the reasons you see a market rally just before a market crash, coupled with the dynamic that longs have to recall their shares to sell them, squeezing out all shorts before a drop.
Okay, this sounds like a crazy conspiracy. What evidence do you have that this is actually occurring?
tHe VIx iS brOkEN
Anyone who follows the markets probably remembers the trading community up in arms since about December of 2022 about how the VIX was broken. The VIX is thought of by a lot of people as a "fear gauge" as it typically inverses SPX price. In December, that dynamic changed, and indeed the melt up in late December through January was highlighted by a rise in VIX. So what was going on?
What the VIX actually measures is market demand for options, more or less. the implied volatility, or expected future volatility, of an options contract is essentially just the knob the market maker can turn to change the price of an option. And depending on demand, they do. If a lot of people want to buy calls, just jack up OTM IV to capture those sweet, sweet premiums, then crank it down at the top of the pump and pay back pennies on the dollar.
To highlight this effect, let's compare the current SPX options chain to the SPX chain back at the height of August. We were around similar prices, had similar total delta on the SPX chain, meaning the effective weight of the options chains were similar, and were similarly in the middle of a large move upward. The big difference between now and then? VIX. In August, the VIX was around 20. Now? It has been pushed down to 14.5. If VIX is simply a fear gauge, this would imply that there is much less fear in the market now than back in August. But hold on! This can't be right, because VIX was only about 20 just a few weeks after the bank failures in March. There's no way there was less fear in the market in March than at the height of the peak in August. So what is going on? More options are sold now than they were back in August. Figuring out which options are bought or sold is very difficult; the CBOE doesn't release that information. But there are tricks you can play to "guess" and we have done some work on these guesses that coincide quite well with price action.
So lets look at the change in market maker delta risk between the peak of August and today. The x-axis has the SPX strikes. The blue data corresponds to the left y-axis and represents the total change in delta at that strike in $B from open options. Positive delta implies bought calls or sold puts. Negative delta implies sold calls or bought puts. The dotted red line is the price as of close on friday. The orange line and right y-axis show the total aggregate amount of delta the market maker has to hedge as a function of spot price. It's perfectly balanced where it crosses zero (delta neutral).
Change in delta the MM must hedge from August 2022 peak to June 2, 2023.
So what is going on here? A massive amount of positive delta was added to the chain. From 3850 up to about 4200. So either these must be bought calls or sold puts that are now on the chain that weren't there before. A closer analysis shows that these are largely sold puts, consistent with the theory that sold puts are propping up the market currently. A large majority of these started flowing in after the march bank failures, precisely at the time when you would expect fearful participants to not make bullish bets. Keep in mind, these puts are far out of the money, so each contract contributes a small amount of delta to the chain. There is a massive excess of sold puts on the chain that weren't there in August. This delta adds up to trillions of dollars worth of positive hedge positions on the index. Note, however, that the delta around 4300 isn't that much different than it was in August of 2022.
Typically, index options are used to hedge underlying long positions on the index. Most puts are bought from market makers to hedge a long portfolio against downside. So if we were actually in the beginnings of a new bull market, you would expect the market to be pushing new highs on the back of long positions (and the associated long put hedge). Instead we see a bunch of short puts. Alternatively, we don't see all that many fewer sold calls above us than in the past. If market participants were bullish, they would certainly want to remove their sold calls (although the short puts have done a good job the last few months squeezing out short calls periodically, something that occurred last week).
If this is a bull market, where are all of the bulls? Perhaps pumping tech megacaps by raising price targets to objectively absurd price targets, while providing a tailwind with sold puts, is just a way for the big boys to sell us their shares before it all comes tumbling down.
They'll be ready at the bottom to buy them back.