Tom Torero’s NYC Daygame Infields || Volume and Warming Up

Have you seen this clip of Tom Torero doing daygame in NYC? Check it out. Highly recommend it.

Not only is it a very good example of daygame in practice, but the consecutive approaches help detail some of the basic tenants of the daygame learning curve. There is a lot to see here, and not all of it is on the surface.

tom torero nyc dayame infield

Before daygame, I studied nightgame forever. Like, for years. A quick summary of those days might be that I learned to banter with bitchy, overweight, older girls in bars. And I drank too much. That’s true. I was out with Hurricane and the Professor. It was fun… sort of.

Nightgame was never my thing, but I did get laid more often than my pre-game years. I didn’t rely on my social circle for girls at all at that point, but my progress was at best a dotted line to the cold approach I had been practicing. I used the skills I was learning through my nightgame “practice” to pick up girls at restaurants, cafes, etc. I barely consider those days progress by my standards today, but I did get better.

It was only after I started daygame that I started to actually understand “the game.” The difference was volume.

When I was into nightgame at bars… we would walk in, and look at all the couples and groups, and hope for a two-set of single girls to walk in unescorted. It mostly didn’t happen. Really hot girls were rarely alone (or in pairs). I talked to 30 year old divorced women… or whatever was available. I had some fun. I had some drunk makeouts. I once went home with a girl that looked like Grimace from McDonalds (humblebrag)… but my “training” was mostly a bunch of weak interactions with girls for whom I felt little/no real attraction. And even then… if I talked to “six girls” in a night, that was “high volume.”

I didn’t get the kind of practice I need to really grow until I finally committed to daygame.

Daygame was a whole new deal. A steady stream of single girls, dripping down the sidewalk. More hot girls in a half hour than in six whiskeys six hours in a bar. If I did two hours on the street, I could talk to 10+ girls (every one of them hotter than the girls I was talking to in bars).

Daygame introduced me to proper volume. And that volume gave me a chance to really practice. To practice on girls that were properly hot. I learned how to take numbers. I learned more than that.

Volume changed game for me. Volume… is why I got good better. Daygame is why I got better.

So now I’m known for my strong advocacy for volume as the key to getting good with girls. It’s true for nightgame as much as it is for daygame… but I don’t give a shit about nightgame.

In the community we debate the concept of “a numbers game.” That concept is controversial, only because that sometimes sounds like there is no skill to it. That volume is the same as “spam approaching,” and of course that is not true. It’s not subtle, but I can see why some folks don’t get it. It IS a numbers game, precisely because you cannot develop the skills (of approaching, let alone seduction) without the practice that comes with doing this with a lot of girls.

A lot of girls. You talk to a lot of girls, or you never fucking get it. Period.

A lot of approaches. A lot of numbers. A lot of dates (like a fucking lot). A lot of lays. A lot of introspection to help tease apart what worked, what didn’t, what it all meant when something actually went well. A lot of sex. A lot of wondering about that too.

A lot of volume. Or you’ll never begin to understand this game. Anyone that says otherwise is a goddamn liar.


So back to Tom’s daygame infields…

I like his footage purely for its face-value. A daygamer in his element. Full yes to that.

But I like it even more for its progression. We can see Tom improve from set to set and that progression can show us something about how to train for this kind of sport.

SET #1: 0:21… opens with “sorry.” Mechanical set. Tom is good at daygame (no doubt), but this one is clunky. You can hear him pumping a little bit of emotion into it (“thank God!” at 0:42). But he’s talking too fast. And the set is too short. He sort of forces the close. She rejects it. No surprise. As he would say, “First one, worst one.” Fine.


SET #2: 1:20… opens with “excuse me.” The Mexican girl. This one is a little smoother. They go back and forth. Like his Stealth Seduction, I can (painfully) hear myself in some of his mechanical awkwardness… the feel of him rather lovelessly marching through “the model.” Her laugh is fake, artificially high. She is trying to get out of it. He rams in the close… she says, “this is too much, but thank you.” She is a nice girl, but that’s no love connection.

They can’t all be love connections. But the lack of flow in this one might not be “chance.”

Game is about “the cards” we are dealt as much as the skill of the player. So this isn’t just Tom… the random chance of the cards each girl is always a part of what we’re watching, no matter how good the player is or isn’t.

But, notice this: these sets are in order. You’re looking at him doing a number of sets, in order, in a row, in one day, over just a few hours. (It’s extraordinarily rare to be presented with infields in this format.) You can watch his “vibe” in terms of how many he’s done… and what warming up does for his game.

I’m pointing to volume. I’m pointing to vibe. And I’m pointing to Tom warming up.

SET #3: 2:57… more “sorry.” I think I can feel him settling down a bit here… His pace is a little more “organic” sounding. I feel less “stiff” listening to it. You still feel him working (stacking through his stuff), but it’s getting better. He’s still talking too fast. She is a bit polite (3:58… “yeah,” fake laugh, then “yeah” again… sounds polite, but not into it). She volunteers some stuff after that, and is playing along. Her laugh is a little more real. Then he tries to close. It sounds weak to my ears, but she accepts.

3rd approach, and he is looking better. Tom is no amateur, but notice how this set sounds better. Not enough to inspire any envy in me, but he’s starting to sound more solid. That’s three…

Now check out this one:

SET #4: 4:48… he’s still “sorry,” but listen to this set. “I love… your hair.” Fucking solid. “Thank you so much.” She gives him such a juicy response. Awesome. He’s indoors, so maybe that is part of what helps him dial in his vibe. Slows him down. Chills him out. But as I listen to this set, it feels good. That is good daygame right there. This one is in a completely different league vs the first three. He is so much slower. His voice is deeper. Qualitatively better. More “bedroom-y.” Closes much better. Good set.

Hot damn. Now I’m jealous.

He warmed up. This set, is in every way, better than the first ones. Could be a coincidence. Maybe this girl is just more into him, or more fun. Maybe she is just a “yes” girl. But notice the very first words out of his mouth… notice the tone. Before she can say much to encourage him or help juice his vibe: “I love… your hair.” It’s not the line (it never is). It’s that “subcommunication.” It’s the pace of his voice. So much better here.

That comment from WorldWideGame is unrelated to this post, but the rule applies here too. Tom’s vibe is better…. because he’s warm.

For me… this is a perfect demonstration of the role of volume. As he gets a few sets under his belt, this one is suddenly rich, and slow, and creamy. This is the vibe that makes me want to get out there and daygame.

No. It’s not a coincidence. There is reason that his first set wasn’t that good. His “good vibe” doesn’t really kick in until he’s done a few approaches. He’s obviously not a beginner. This is just how it works for most of us… most of the time… warming up, it’s not just a beginner thing.

And volume matters.

He only shows us six of 10 sets here. He skips a few. #7 is okay (not as good as #4). He skips #8 and #9. Here is the last one:

Set #10: 12:49… he’s still sorry. But look at the pauses in that set. Go back and compare that to the pacing of his words in Set #1. He is racing to spit it out in #1. Not sexy. Nine sets later the flow of his words is languid. Nicely done, Tommy boy.

Not just total number of approaches… but total in the same day. You will get better with total volume… but your total volume will be more meaningful, when you do suitable within-day volume. 10 approaches per daygame session. More if you can.

This video is proof of what within-day volume can do to help cultivate and open up your vibe. And with better vibe, comes better sets. And reference experiences you can’t get when you’re not warmed up and you try to cherry pick a set here and there — always cold and clunky, never warm and effective. That’s a formula to to remain robotic (like Tom’s earlier sets).

Warm up, my brothers. Total volume and within-day volume. Both are important.

“I don’t bother with warmups anymore. The first couple can be a bit shakey but often my first set is also the best of the day. Last night I did 4 and the first set was the best.”

What Roy is saying here ^ is true. Sometimes my first set of the day is my best one as well. But rarely.

And lets be real… if you approach, you’re warming up. “Warmup sets” are just sets… they still count. As long as we’re hitting an appropriate number of girls per session, we’re allowing for time to “warm up.”

More importantly, “10+ approach days” will mean we’re ensuring we get some measure of contact with the girls after we’re warm. And the subsequent approaches will likely be smoother. It makes sense. We warm up. We do better. True in daygame as almost everything else.

I’m stoked to follow guys like Jeff Tuco on the Twit. I am. I get inspired when I see him post about approaching.

But when I see “3 approaches,” I know a guy isn’t at the potential he could be if he hit “10” or “15” and really hit his stride. Jeff may be the rare guy that is “optimal” at low within-day approaches, but if so, again, he’s an exception. Tom’s magic set in this video is #4. If he had stopped at 3, he would have had one weak number. #4 was a solid one. And that set is one that shows me the best daygame.

“I told him that he could probably cut a year off his learning curve if he’d head to midtown to find more foot traffic.”
— Nash

I made this ^ comment about Runner when he and I were out in NYC last month. This is maybe a better way of making my point…

Do you want to learn slow? Or do you want to learn fast?

There are no shortcuts. But what if more within-day volume meant you could cut a year off your learning curve? Same amount of approaches, but you’d be “good” a year earlier in your life. If that were true… that’s a powerful opportunity.

I talk about “super days.” A super day is a day when I get four or more leads in one day. With very rare exception, those are days when I do 15+ approaches. And it is also not that rare for me to date more than one of the girls from that kind of day. I do volume. I get warmed up and hit my stride. Sets start to click. I get leads. The quality of those leads are better on high volume days than the same leads might be if I had picked them off, one at a time, on a series of low volume days. And because the leads are better… I get laid more.

Daygame math. Volume. Cool.

Viva daygame.