The Body Count Ratio

We now have math lab on a website dedicated to whores.

Seems like overthinking to me. Negotiating skills carry over, they're not that specific to what you're negotiating for. Generally comes down to who's more willing to take a pass. I would say I find about 1 in 10 women to be very attractive. And I'm fine with walking out of a club without buying a single dance.

I guess my feeling is the opposite. Low S is more likely to have Golden Pussy Syndrome. The PL is likely going to have to offer way over market rates to close the deal. Meanwhile high S is more likely to deal in volume.

Seems like overthinking to me.

Oh, absolutely I am overthinking this. It's a fun idea that's been rattling around my head and I wanted to share. Guilty as charged!

Negotiating skills carry over, they're not that specific to what you're negotiating for.

I think there's some overlap, but also tend to think negotiating in the club to be a pretty a pretty unique experience. Like, consider a car salesman who has sold thousands of cars, who shows up at a club to negotiate for his first extra. Or a Private Equity mogul who eats corporations for lunch, but has never had ITC action.

In spite of their negotiation experience, they both still have very limited data on pricing at the club. They've never been in a negotiation that included a stripper handshake. The car salesman doesn't know not to use his credit card. The PE mogul makes the mistake of wearing a well tailored suit and bespoke shoes that makes him a mark.

This pair might fare better than tradesman or student who shows up at the club for their first time, but I think at the end of the day, they'll still both be outmatched by a tiny stripper in lingerie who has sold her services many times before.

Low S is more likely to have Golden Pussy Syndrome.
Meanwhile high S is more likely to deal in volume.

Ooh, I think I agree with this @JamesSD. I wonder if there's a way to weight the formula to account for GPS for a low S. I still think high S wants to get a good deal for her services, even though she knows the volume to be important.

@RonJax2 I think you're spot-on! Us PLs tend to have a much longer (time-wise) career doing what we do, but there is simply no way we could match the sheer volume of the majority of dancers that do extras (despite them typically having much shorter careers doing what they do).

@Baristafan Yes, it's a little bit of basic math, put in a fun context and applied to something we all love. I know, it's not as riveting as when you post childish tantrums about nobody liking you and empty threats to quit the site. Nor is it as thought-provoking as when you post (what I can only assume are your fantasies) strange, nonsensical, hypothetical scenarios like "What would you do if a drunk stripper, wearing a used condom on her head, came to your front door to assfuck you with a lawn gnome as revenge for your dick getting soft on her in VIP?". But hey, you'll just have to excuse @RonJax2 for being an adult and cut him some slack on this one. I promise, he'll do his best to carefully study your posts for the future, so that next time he posts, he doesn't disappoint you.

Nobody had told me that I had to be good at math...

What would you do if a drunk stripper, wearing a used condom on her head, came to your front door to assfuck you with a lawn gnome as revenge for your dick getting soft on her in VIP?

FUCK, @TimmyTrumpets9. This was going to be the title of my next post. 😔 (OK, but FR, thank you for the laugh. 😂🤣)

despite them typically having much shorter careers doing what they do

I was thinking about TJ writing this up. I think that's one corner of the world where an experienced PL may have a strong BCR advantage in many cases. Chica careers tend to be very short, and there's always so many new chicas.

I think like @JamesSD says there's some GPS with the newer girls, kind of the "overreaching" I described. But also just dumb shit you have to be patient with.

But like, on Michigan Ave or The Block, where you might encounter ladies who have been at it 2 decades? Those ladies have got the weather vane in every battle.

But I'll give you an answer. I think by now I have a little bit of experience so...
BCR ~ 0.5 Indicates even footing with the dancer.

@jascoi, I bet with your years experience, I'll wager in TJ you often end up in situations with BCR > 0.9 or even much higher than that.

In a couple of the high mileage club I frequent, a lot of dancers meeting me for the first time ask if I come to the club a lot. I used to think that was just basic ice-breaker talk but now I realize many are gather info for possible negotiations. Even if they have a large body count they want to learn as quickly as possible your level of game.

I haven't thought this through, but across the universe of customers and strippers, the sum of S has to be exactly the sum of P. I think that means that one estimate of your ratio is just the number of customers per (customer plus stripper).

The other point that I think I can prove is that most transactions involve high-S strippers.

Any stripper regularly doing extras for a year is going to have done them 5 times more than I ever have in my life. Shit, I've lost count of how many times I have. Like in any negotiation, it's about who is more willing to walk away. Don't be desperate, don't be a mark, don't be a simp, it's that easy. I don't see what a stripper learns taking her 1000th dick vs her 100th.

I haven't thought this through, but across the universe of customers and strippers, the sum of S has to be exactly the sum of P.

Let's assume sum S has does have to be equal to the sum P. Things that might break this assumption include:

• PLs banging other PLs in the club P4P as some in this thread might enjoy.
• Threesomes and other orgies, depending on how you count, will break this assumption just like they will break your budget in the club.

But let's assume for the sake of your theory that all customers are men, all strippers are women, and all extras are one-on-one hetero interactions.

I think that means that one estimate of your ratio is just the number of customers per (customer plus stripper).

Ooh, I love this. I think it's almost right, except it's like the inverse of that, like

1 - (Nc / (Nc + Ns)) = BCRmean

We can call this @From978 's last theorem. I think the math checks out... let's try a thought experiment.

I'm thinking of a tiny village with 100 men and 100 women that we might study over a one year period. Hypothetically let's say it's on a remote island and no one ever comes or goes during the year we study it.

In this village there is just 1 stripper willing to do extras and she starts providing such services for the first time at the exact start of our study. 50% of the men on the island will see her for a mean average of 2 times in our 1 year period. Assume we have a few outliers who see her monthly or more frequently, these are offset by a big cluster of men who see her only once.

By the end of our year the next average interaction will look like:

S = 100
Pmean = 2
BCRmean = 2/102 = 1/51 ~= 0.0196
1 - (Nc / (Nc + Ns)) = 1- 50/51 = 1/51 QED!

An interesting consequence of the single provider model we might observe over the year is there exists a ceiling for BCR of 0.5 for all our provider's interactions. She's evenly matched with the first dude she shags, after that no matter who she sees she'll always outmatch them.

Maybe the single provider model is flawed, so let's try again, but this time 10 of the women on the island are strippers willing to do the same amount of extras. Because the totals for P and S must be equal, these 10 women must have an mean average S of 10 to account for 100 total boinkings from 50 men averaging 2 pounds each. Like in real life, there's a distribution between one lady who only does 1 extra and one does several dozen.

Smean = 10
Pmean = 2
BCRmean = 2/12 = 1/6 ~= 0.1667
1 - (Nc / (Nc + Ns)) = 1 - 50/60 = 1/6 QED again

OK, so that's not a formal proof just two data points, but let's call it done.

The other point that I think I can prove is that most transactions involve high-S strippers.

Looking at how these two scenarios above I think that feels intuitively true. In our second village with the data distributed as I've described, a majority of all boinkings will be with just 2-3 of our highest volume strippers.

I think a corollary is a majority of all transaction involve low-P customers. The average punter is highly inexperienced.

And a corollary to that corollary is should one finds oneself pondering the algebra of strip club interactions, one is quite an exceptional category and not necessarily in a good way 🤔