Review of Lucas Hunt Hooking Structure Part 1

First, I want to start off by saying that anything that’s placed into a structure should follow a few
rules

1. It needs to make sense chronologically so that you’re able to place it on a timeline and that
it’s replicable for each interaction. Being able to track where your interactions end will allow
you to identify your bottlenecks and sticking points.

1. Everything that’s placed inside the structure should be for the sole purpose of moving the
interaction forward (moving you from A to B to C). Everything should be to build
compliance..

Open + rooting

Yes, the first step of the interaction will always be opening (obviously). Rooting the interaction can
also be useful sometimes. But it’s not something that I’d put into a structure and there are multiple
reasons for it.

2. You run the risk of displaying interest too early. Let’s say you do it before she perceives you
as high value - you’re going to ask for too much compliance too early and the interaction will
blow out. It’s one of the more common things I’ve noticed with students - especially in
daygame. I find it helpful to add in things to increase the probability of her responding well
to whenever you display interest. It could be emotional spikes or DHV’s.

2. If you need to root your interactions verbally (I came to speak to you for x reason - that you
find her attractive), it’s indicating to me that your subcommunications are not that great.
Interactions look platonic and standing very far away from the girl. If the girl doesn’t know
why I’m speaking to her without me verbalizing it, that’s the first thing I’ll address. Close
more proximity. It’s a common thing in daygame that they’ll wonder why you’re speaking to
them, because most of the people approaching them during daytime is trying to sell them
something or fundraising. If you’re being mistaken for a fundraiser, it’s obvious that you
need to work on your subcoms. If you need to root the interaction, you’re playing in damage
control mode already.

Attraction techniques + tonalities ( causing ER ) -

Investment/qualification questions OR/AND DHV baiting questions -

DHV Baiting questions is great.

Keep stacking

Not completely sure what you mean by “keep stacking”. But it sort of sounds like you’re randomly
throwing stuff out to see if it sticks. Correct me if I’ve misunderstood you.

Attraction Techniques

Cold reads
Cold reads are cool and I use them a lot. But it’s important that you weave in DHV’s. Otherwise, it
has the same effect as if showing them a magic trick. They may get a bit impressed and a slight
emotional spike but it’s not gonna build attraction in itself unless you’re able to use them to display
more value. Each cold read should be thought out in a strategic manner so that you’re able to
potentially segway into a routine. Which routine depends on how much perceived value/compliance
you have. If you have a lot of compliance, you could for example go straight into type routine. If you
have a bit less compliance, you could use it as a segway into a DHV as I’ve mentioned in the example
below.

- ethnicity

Cold reading ethnicity will be useful if you’re able to lead it into something more impactful. Towards
a DHV. “I can tell because I’ve dated girls from x country before”

- age

Age cold read is only relevant if you’re able to lead it into something more impactful. Framing her as
a little girl no matter what the response is. She’s older than you? She still feels like a little girl to you!

- profession

Again, only useful if you’re able to capitalize on it and lead it into something more impactful.

- hobbies

- Origin

Disqualifier :

While disqualifers have their place in interactions, I would NOT put into a structure, and it’s
something that I would use very sparingly. And there are multiple reasons for that.

3. If the girl is complying, it makes no sense to disqualify her. It could even mean her ego
flaring up and that’ll likely be the end of the interaction. We see Todd doing this all the time.
Punishing a girls compliance until her ego flares up. He recognises that he lost compliance
and starts chasing and the girl ends up losing attraction - vicious cycle.

3. If the girl is insecure, it will raise certain walls and defenses that may take a very long time to
be brought down again (if ever).

1. If you decide to disqualify, you should have a VERY good reason behind it. And the answer
should always be “because it’s going to build more compliance”. So when does disqualifying
raise compliance? Some girls respond very well to validation strips. Girls who have been
spam approached and overvalidated or simply respond very well to dominance (the
willingness to disqualifying displays certain attractive personality traits).

1. Another good reason to potentially disqualify is for strategic reasons. For example - if you
know that the girl is about to disqualify you, you can simply beat her to it. This can win you
more time to build more value, identify & address a potential concern or simply place her
into a negative frame so that she starts qualifying herself out of it.
Your too x for me

Same thing applies here as above - should only be used if it’s calculated to make her verbalize to a
good frame. A common mistake I’ve seen when students or guys on YouTube use this, is that they
accidentally punish good (useful) frames!

Im too x for you

(i cant believe) you do/are x, this would never work out

These can be good, but they also need to be carefully thought through. Again, the reason that you’d
use any of these are to build compliance. It’s very important to keep the Commitment & Consistency
Bias in mind when using these. You need to make sure that her response doesn’t set frames that
makes it more difficult for you to move the interaction forward. A blunt example could be “You’re
too wild for me”. If she perceives this as a negative frame, she’s going to go against it and frame
herself as “not wild”. So if you’re going to use these, do it to generate a certain response. And the
response should be her committing to a positive frame that makes it easier for you to move the
interaction forward. For example, her being open-minded, sexually open/free, spontaneous, fun, not
innocent.

Example of it done right: You: “You’re too innocent for me!”

Her: “What makes you think I’m innocent?”

My concern are that they really lack subtlety, and most girls will be able to see through it and stop
themselves from reacting or qualifying and even lose compliance. But if you phrase it more like “I
totally understand! It’s very common for more innocent girls to have these kind of experiences with
guys”, it’s much more likely to slip through the cracks and they’ll start asking “What do you mean I’m
innocent?” and you can get them to qualify from there.

Long story short - DON’T USE THEM RANDOMLY. Do it to get them to commit to certain
Commitment biases that helps you move the interaction forward.

Push pull - IOI / IOD :

Your very cute/adorable/sexy for a x ( blonde, mexican, teacher, dancer ect )

I’m not a fan of this for multiple reasons

4. I’d really avoid “adorable” since most girls will interpret it as condescending or patronizing.

4. I’d also avoid “sexy” because it’s triggering “thirst red flags”.

2. I’d avoid “cute” because it just comes across as very soft.

2. It’s definitely not something that I’d put into a structure because it’s far too situational and it
needs to really be calibrated based on the specific girl and how much compliance and value
you have with her at a specific moment. And I’ll delve deeper into that right now. As I said
earlier, if you display interest before you have enough compliance - it’s most likely just going
to result in a blowout. If this is a girl who respond poorly to validation (she’s overvalidated
 and it’s boring for her), it’s also going to lead to a blowout. I could potentially see myself
qualifying her if she’s getting insecure to the point where she doesn’t believe that I actually
like her. Other than that, it’s generally a good idea to have them somewhat wondering if you
actually like them or not. The lack of validation (not necessarily stripping it, but just not
giving it) will cause them to chase it. And if I had to qualify her or compliment her, it
wouldn't be her being “cute, hot, adorable, or sexy”. It would be for a personality trait that
makes it easier for me to move the interaction forward later on! For example - it could be
her being submissive, her being open minded, I love how sexually free and open she is.
Which one I pick depends on how much compliance I already have, and what I think her
future concerns may be.

I love you even though your x

Could also come across as patronizing and I can’t even really imagine a scenario where this would be
useful to build compliance. It could result in an emotional spike, which would cause a temporary
spike in compliance. If you’re able to capitalize on it, then all good. But you need to already have it
sort of thought-out how you’re gonna capitalize on it. I can give you an example.

“I love you even though you’re very innocent!”

“Hahahaha I’m not innocent”

“Ok seriously though - what’s the craziest thing you’ve ever done?”

I would NEVER do it if I didn’t already have the entire sequence already thought out.

For a x your very Y

Again, you need to make sure that your sentence is phrased and designed so that it triggers the
desired response (her committing to a positive frame).

Neg ( VERY, ALOT, INTERESTING ) ( compliment gone wrong ):

Your hair is very black

You have alot of colours

You have a interesting style

You have an interesting laugh

You blink alot

You have alot of freckles

I love your hair, is it real?

i love your shirt! is it from h&m?

I would be very careful with these. With insecure girls, it’s likely to bring up walls that may never be
brought down again. And with less insecure girls, they may see through it and see it as a pathetic
attempt to get them to react. If done, it has to be incredibly subtle and with the right
tonality/delivery.