Saturday 30 August 2014

The Speed Dating Value-Add

In a speed dating event, you meet dates that the organizer has arranged for you. In a singles mixer, you are free to mingle with and speak to anyone you wish.

When it comes to matching up with guys that you might be interested in, is there a difference between a speed dating event and a casual singles mixer?

That was a question that I asked myself when I first started 7for7. A speed dating event is a whole lot of work to organize. There are participants to confirm registration for, seating arrangements to devise, program sheets to print out, matches to coordinate at the end of an event...Quite frankly, a singles mixer is a lot less preparation. It can accommodate walk-ins, and it's also more profitable since I can pack in as many guys as the venue can hold.

So, why do I organize speed dating events?

Because I had a hunch that they work better than casual mixers. And I set out to collect data to verify that hypothesis. This post is about how speed dating improves your chances of getting matches as compared to just attending a mixer event.

Let's start with a diagram.


Let's take our gold-colored guy in the diagram as an example: "John".

When I hold a speed dating event for 20 guys, John meets with 7 other guys on a speed date: the guys in blue. Now, John attended the event with a friend, whom he has no romantic inclinations toward. John's friend is the green guy.

Aside from John, his friend and John's 7 speed dates, there are 11 other guys who are also participating in the event: the guys in black. John doesn't meet these guys on his speed dates, but he can meet with them during the mingling after the speed dating portion of the event.

Now, John can express interest in any of the guys who attend the event, not just those he speed dated. Because he has 1 friend whom he knows, 7 speed dates and 11 other participants, we can expect that all other things being equal, the proportion of guys he's interested in should be, on average, 1:7:11, in the order of his friend, speed dates and other participants. That is, we would expect that the number of "other participants" that John would be interested in would be about 11/7 times the number of "speed dates" that he's interested in.

All other things being equal of course.

Now of course, John probably isn't very interested in his friend. And he might actually leave the event without being interested in anyone at all. The ratio of 1:7:11 is just an expected proportion. John obviously can't be interested in fractional guys.

But, I can do the same proportioning for every guy who attends my event. More generally, I can count, across all the events I have held, the number of possible "expressions of interest" in speed dates, other participants, and the "declined": those guys that participants at my event have told me specifically that they do not wish to speed date (usually because they already know each other).

Based on data I have collected, this is the theoretical distribution of expressions of interest.


As can be expected, the greatest theoretical share of expressions of interest belongs to other participants. After all, there can be up to 20 participants at one event, but each guy only speed dates 7 guys; there can be up to 12 other participants he doesn't speed date. The smallest share goes to declined, which is also expected, since most guys attend my events with at most 1 or 2 friends.

This theoretical distribution is premised on all other things being equal. If speed dating adds no value as compared to a casual singles mixer, we would expect the actual distribution of expressions of interest to look very similar to the theoretical distribution.

In fact, the actual distribution of expressions of interest looks like this:


Clearly, the vast majority of expressions of interest is actually between guys who speed date each other. So, speed dating does make a difference.

Do note that this disparity between theoretical and actual distributions is not due to participants having spent more time speed dating instead of mixing with other participants.

If you have ever attended a 7for7 event, you would know that I specifically budget slightly more than 1 hour for mingling. This is intended by design. The speed dating portion of the event takes up just 50 minutes. I wanted to ensure that participants had more than enough time to mingle around so that a fair comparison could be made between speed dating and mingling.

Now of course, the design of the experiment is not perfect. The optimal experimental design would involve me holding separate speed dating-only events and casual mixer-only events, and comparing results between the two. But as it is, getting enough participants is already a challenge, which is why I blended the two kinds of events.

There are other caveats when interpreting the results:
  1. Some participants leave right after the speed dating portion of the event, not staying to mingle. This would naturally diminish the number of expressions of interest in the "other participants" group. But the number of such participants is generally small.

  2. The seating arrangement for 7for7 is not random, but devised by an algorithm that minimizes age differences while maximizing common interests. It's an open question whether it is my algorithm that is increasing the proportion of expressions of interest coming from speed dating, or the nature of speed dating itself.
Despite the caveats however, the evidence does seem to suggest that speed dating enhances opportunities for interaction far more than compared to casual mingling. Speed dating leaves a deeper impression and improves the likelihood that you'll find someone you're interested in.

The next logical question to ask then is, assuming you were interested in someone after a speed date, what's the likelihood that they are interested in you back? That is, what percentage of expressions of interest arising from speed dating become matches? And how does this percentage compare to expressions of interest that arise from casual mingling instead?

Here's the data:



If you are interested in someone that you met while mingling, the probability of him being interested in you back is 13%. In contrast, for a speed date you're interested in, the probability of him being interested in you back is a significantly higher 19%.

Remember, this is the proportion of expressions of interest that turn into matches. So, irrespective of how likely you are to be interested in someone you speed date versus someone you mingle with, the chances of someone you are interested in being interested in you back are still higher for a speed date as opposed to a casual meeting during the mingling. Much higher in fact, almost by half.

I've refrained from showing the raw data thus far, but now is a good time to mention it. Across all 3 events that I have held, there have been 18 matches that resulted from speed dates. In contrast, there have been only 5 matches that resulted between participants who did not speed date each other. The contrast is quite remarkable when you consider that despite the larger amount of time that I allocate for mingling and the far larger number of guys that each participant can meet while mingling as compared to speed dating, the number of matches that result is fewer than half.

So, what's the conclusion? The conclusion that I draw from the data is this: in terms of getting you matches, facilitated events such as speed dating work much better than unstructured events like singles' mixers.

A facilitated event need not be a speed dating event. It could be a small group of guys at a party hosted by one of your friends who's trying to introduce you to other friends of his. The point here is this: a little bit of facilitation that promotes conversation between guys who would not normally approach each other of their own volition is a good thing.

In retrospect, it's hardly a surprise that facilitated events work better than unstructured events. I have a very good straight friend who attends singles' meet-ups, and according to him, the few hot girls who attend the event invariably get surrounded and buttonholed by many guys, while the less attractive girls (who may be perfectly decent looking, just not as hot) get ignored.

I imagine the same would occur for gay men attending such events. Going to singles' mixers works well if you are very good-looking and attractive. But if you are very good-looking and attractive, online dating on gay apps like jack'd probably works just as well; you get lots of messages without stepping outside the house.

For those of you who are less confident of your looks, facilitated events are probably going to work better for you than mixers or online dating.

Monday 25 August 2014

Who Gets Matched Up at 7for7 Events?

I've held 3 events so far, and about 50 participants have attended my events. Only a few participants have attended 2 events, none all 3. Some of you have received matches, some of you have not. This post is about who gets matched up at an event, and how you can improve your chances of getting matches in future events.

Let's start with with a chart.


At every event, every participant indicates on their program sheet who they are interested in. In the chart above, every black dot represents a participant. On the x-axis is the number of participants he indicated interest in. On the y-axis is the number of participants who indicated interest in him.

Right now, the chart isn't very interesting. It's just a scatter of black dots. So, let's add more information. The chart below is exactly the same as the one above, except that participants who received matches are shown as red circles instead of black dots. The size of the circle is proportionate to the number of matches the participant received. Large red circles represent participants who received many matches.


The chart above shows more of a pattern, but to make things even easier to see, let's divide the chart up into 4 quadrants.


Now let's name each of the 4 quadrants.
  1. Upper Left Hand Quadrant: Snow Queens (represented by Elsa from the movie Frozen)
  2. Upper Right Hand Quadrant: Belles of the Ball (represented by Belle from Beauty and the Beast)
  3. Lower Right Hand Quadrant: Butterflies
  4. Lower Left Hand Quadrant: Wallflowers

If you haven't already guessed, the names are descriptive of each of the quadrants. Snow Queens tend to be popular, but are selective with who they are interested in. Butterflies are the opposite; they're very sociable and are interested in several guys, but tend not to be so popular themselves. Wallflowers tend not to make their presence felt during the event; they aren't interested in many guys and vice versa. Belles of the Ball are exactly that: popular, sociable...they never go home empty-handed.

Now, please note that while every participant falls into a quadrant, in no way am I judging anyone for which quadrant they fall into. Where you fall into a quadrant depends not just on you, but also on what everyone else does at the event. For example, if everyone at an event was a Butterfly, all the Butterflies would transform into Belles of the Ball simply due to group interactions.

The reason why I divided participants into these 4 quadrants was to try and understand how being attractive and being sociable at an event affects how many matches a participant gets.

Below is the chart showing a summary of results for each of the 4 quadrants. The left y-axis shows the percentage of participants in each quadrant who go home with at least 1 match. The right y-axis shows the average number of matches for participants in each quadrant who have at least 1 match.


Looking at this chart, some things become clear. Wallflowers unsurprisingly don't get many matches. Every other quadrant does significantly better at receiving at least 1 match.

What is a bit more unexpected is that while the Snow Queens are popular with many guys, they only do marginally better than the Butterflies in terms of the probability of getting at least one match and the average number of matches they get. As it turns out, a Snow Queen may be good-looking, have a great body, be popular...but that is no guarantee that the few guys he's interested in are interested in him back. The Butterflies do almost as well as the Snow Queens by being sociable and open to meeting many guys. For a Snow Queen, being selective may be about knowing what you're looking for, but it certainly narrows the field down quite a bit.

The Belles of the Ball do the best at events, again unsurprisingly. What may come as a surprise is how much better they actually do compared to other participants. No Belle of the Ball ever leaves an event without a match, and quite often, they leave with multiple matches. Being attractive is well and good, but being sociable and approachable at an event makes things even better for them.

So, what percentage of participants fall into each of the 4 quadrants? See the chart below.


Belles of the Ball are rare, Snow Queens and Butterflies are about equally represented, and the largest group are the Wallflowers.

So, at this point, you might be asking, what does this all mean for me?

The primary takeaway that I want participants to understand is that attending a dating event is not about screening guys for a potential soulmate. It's about being open to the possibility of chemistry with someone else.

While every person is selective about what they are looking for, it makes sense to be selective only about the things most important to you. If you are very selective about many things, that is certainly your prerogative, but you should understand that the odds of a match will be correspondingly lower, just as they are for the Snow Queens and the Wallflowers. As event organizer, I create the space for interactions; what happens in that space is entirely up to you.

Tuesday 12 August 2014

How Hard is it to Get a Match at a 7for7 Event?

Let's start with a refresher on the basics of probability and combinatorics. For those of you who were bad at math back in school, I promise to go easy on you. :o)

Here's a very simple example.

If you were offered 4 colored blocks, and you could choose any 2, how many different ways could you choose your pair of colored blocks?


The answer is 6. There are 6 different ways of choosing 2 out of 4 blocks.

Now, if you had 20 guys in a room at a gay dating event, how many possible combinations of couples could you have?

....

I'll save you the suspense. There are a total of 190 different couple combinations. So, theoretically speaking, when I hold a 7for7 event, there could up to 190 matches. Fewer if the number of participants is less than 20. Of course, we never ever even remotely approach that number of matches. So, how many matches do I actually record at every event? You can see the numbers below:



In practice, the total number of matches is very low, as seen in the table above. If we take the total number of matches divided by the total possible number of matches, we end up with a crude estimate of how likely it is for two people to hit it off together. Something like an average probability of 6%.

In reality, the number is even lower for most people, because the good-looking and attractive guys who attend my events go home with multiple matches. These guys skew the average upwards. The probability of a match for an average looking guy with an average personality is probably in the range of about 3%.

We all knew it was challenging finding someone you liked who liked you back, at least enough for a second date. Well, my data is telling you exactly how challenging it is. The odds are 17-1 against.

When I first presented this to the organizers of Indignation when I was pitching the idea of a talk, I was told this rather depressing figure wasn't something I should show, because it would discourage people from attending my events.

I didn't say it then, but I thought that the idea of not showing the data was insane.

The low probability of a match isn't the fault of speed dating; it's a reflection of the fact that it's really hard to find someone compatible. Whether you choose to attend a dating event or not doesn't change that fact. And attending a dating event is not an either-or proposition; just because you go to a dating event doesn't mean you can't also do online dating, ask friends for introductions, go to a gay bar or cruise at the gym. So, the low probability of a match is no reason to not go to a dating event, because it isn't a phenomenon peculiar to a dating event.

In fact, I would argue that the low probability of a match is precisely why people should attend dating events. Again, we'll have to turn to the numbers to get the story.

For any given pair of guys at a 7for7 event, the probability of a match, as stated above, is very low, standing at about 6%. But the probability of a participant who attends a 7for7 event going home with at least one match is actually quite good. Better than 50%!



The chance of hitting it off with one particular guy is only about 6%, but the chance of hitting it off with at least one guy when you meet a whole bunch of guys at an event is ten times better: 60%.

This again reflects the fact that dating is inherently a numbers game. And a dating event is the most efficient way to actually meet, in person, many new guys.  The more guys you meet, the more guys you'll find yourself interested in, and the more likely you will go home with at least one match.

When you consider the low probability of making a match, it makes sense to go to a dating event where you get the chance to meet many gay, single and relationship-oriented individuals. It's like buying multiple lottery tickets; you're more likely to walk away with a prize than if you just bought one ticket (meaning you went on a one-on-one date with a prospect).

And remember, the low probability of a match that I have estimated above is in the context of a dating event, which as I have mentioned, involves gay, single and relationship-oriented individuals.

What's the probability that you'll meet someone gay, single and relationship-oriented in the normal context of your life? And that both of you happen to be compatible with each other?

In all likelihood, much, much lower. 

And if you're closeted? Practically zero.

New Series of Interest Posts - Dating Analytics



When I started 7for7, among the many considerations I had in organizing events was the idea of collecting and analyzing data related to dating. The inspiration for this idea came from OkTrends, the blog from the popular online dating site OkCupid.

Now OkTrends has restarted after a long hiatus (Christian Rudder, the founder, took time out to write his forthcoming book on dating analytics, Dataclysm). And his first new post on OkTrends is a doozy. In his post, he talks about, among other things, the importance of pictures versus the words you fill in your online dating profile.

*Spoiler Alert*: 

Your picture is worth the proverbial thousand words, but your actual words are worth...nothing. Sad, but true, and also unsurprising. But hey, at least someone has proven this for a fact. 

I encourage everyone to read his post in full, especially if you use any online dating websites or apps.


In the spirit of OkTrends' resurrection, after holding 3 events successfully, I've collected enough data to make some interesting observations. Granted, the sample size is small, but I have to start somewhere. 

Originally, I had planned on giving a talk on my insights into dating as part of Indignation 2014. This was the side project I mentioned several weeks ago. However, the organizers of Indignation weren't too enthused about the idea of a talk with statistics and numbers. They offered to help publicize the next 7for7 event instead, but based on data from Google Analytics, there were only about 60 visitors to my blog who linked from Indignation's Facebook page. Just one or two registered on my website (I track that data too). 

Given the limited reach of Indignation, I won't be pursuing the idea of giving a talk. Instead, I've repurposed my presentation as a series of interest posts to be released over the next few weeks. Each post will center on a particular insight or observation that I've gleaned over the course of organizing events.

Now, while enjoying reading my witty and trenchant observations may be well and good for some folks, I understand that some people will want more than that, and indeed, my goal is to offer something for you, as an individual trying to date, that will help you get a better experience out of dating in general. And to that end, this entire series of posts is geared towards offering advice or things to consider as you navigate the jungle that is gay dating.