Mr. Blue did not come to Munich because he had never heard of an opener. He had watched material, tried another bootcamp and practised on his own. What he wanted was somebody beside him who could see what he was doing and give him a useful correction.
This is his account of a two-day private bootcamp in Munich in September 2018. “Mr. Blue” is the name we used for the interview, taken from the microphone in front of me. The purpose was to describe the work, including the parts that did not become obvious until we were out doing it.
The problem was not always a missing line
At first, attraction looked like the main sticking point. His opening could start with energy, but the conversation then lost it. The obvious response would have been to give him more attraction material.
Watching him more closely showed another possibility. Sometimes the woman was already engaged and he continued running material past the point where he could have invited her to spend time together.
He was trying to add something when he needed to recognise what was already there.
The correction was to make the invitation earlier instead of extending the street conversation because a longer conversation looked more accomplished. He said he would not have reached that conclusion on his own. He would probably have worked on more things to say or a different use of body language.
That is why observation matters. A coach should identify the actual mistake rather than apply the most familiar explanation to every student.
Understand the purpose of the stop
Another change concerned the way he approached. He had practised running around into a frontal stop and felt conspicuous doing that in his smaller home city.
The purpose of the opening is to get somebody's attention and give her a chance to engage. The particular movement is a means of doing that, not an obligation to perform a conspicuous manoeuvre every time.
We worked on a more natural approach and clear projection. He said that made it easier to continue practising after returning home. The change reduced the feeling that he was acting out something awkward in public.
There were also moments where an objection needed to be heard instead of brushed aside. In the interview he remembered seeing similar situations handled differently and realising that simply ignoring what somebody said was not a solution.
The date is where another part of the learning starts
Getting an instant date gave us more than a number to discuss. I could observe how he handled the longer conversation and give feedback about frame control and direction.
That revealed a further distinction: a topic can produce an interesting exchange without necessarily expressing the attraction or connection you intend. You need to know what you are doing with the time, not merely fill it.
Mr. Blue liked receiving theory in small pieces tied to something we had just seen. We began with a short discussion, then practised and used the interactions to decide which explanation mattered next.
He stayed for a third day and went out alone after I left. Later he reported continuing with a few approaches around his working days and getting further instant dates. Those were his observations of his progress, not a claim that two days produce the same result for everyone.
The most encouraging part was that he kept applying the changes. He understood his sticking points better, felt more natural and had a clearer purpose for each interaction. Coaching had given him something concrete to practise when nobody was standing beside him.
