There is a lot of talk in the community about consistency and not having to be blown out too many times before you can make an approach that will result in a lay. It has even been mentioned a few times that being able to make one approach and get one lay in the club would be the ultimate goal, in other words 100% game.

There is no doubt that this would be pretty cool and sure it could happen from time to time. However, an important question to ask yourself is "why is this so appealing to you?". Clearly, there are a number of issues including; time saved, less energy wasted, etc, etc. However, I believe the primary reason why people find the notion of 100% game so appealing is because it means they will NEVER HAVE TO GET REJECTED!

Herein lies the problem. This may sound counterintuitive but people who desire to never be rejected will always be rejected!

I can go out and do some day game and I'd say it wouldnt be unreasonable to think that I could do about three approaches and out of those three I'd have a pretty good shot of getting the lay out of one of them. On occassion it might even be one approach one lay, 100% game. However, on another day I might take 10 approaches to get the lay. Whats the difference? To me there is no difference, their just different configurations of the same end result because I really dont care about rejection. And since I dont care about rejection and I make no discrimination between these two occassions the latter example is much less likely.

The reality is that those who dont care about rejection and have no desire to eliminate it are rarely rejected.

This is the crux of outcome independence. If you strive to get 100% game by eliminating rejection than rejection will cast a shadow over your game forever. WHAT YOU RESIST PERSISTS.