[blfr]

Tinder is so extremely effective that it's almost certainly underpriced at all of these levels purely because of perception. I only had gold once and bought a couple of boosts but for over two months I would fill my calendar with 2-4 dates a week at something close to Spotify sub ($20/mo iirc).

There is no other way to meet women this efficiently. And it was a lot of fun, too. It took out all the slog out of dating. It would be a steal at $100/mo.

[numbers_guy]

In my experience, the types of women I am looking for would never use Tinder, so although you get more matches it is still completely useless.

You have to really question what kind of young woman is desperate enough to meet a man that she'd use an app, ... not the kind I'm interested in.

[blfr]

I also expected a certain kind of woman and was suprised how varied users on Tinder were. Of course there were quite a few women with extensive dating experience and, let's say, Instagram tastes (not that there's anything wrong with that) but I also met a very sweet vet who kept sending me dog vids from her clinic, a movie production nerd (making them, not memorizing imdb), a depressive poet with a keen sense of style, and an MD for whom this was like a third real first date in her life.

Occasionally, the photos were a bit old (pre-pandemic) or very flattering, one might have been a tad unstable, but in general, they were just normal and nice.

[nikanj]

This is not how it works for the majority of people. Not saying it doesn’t reward winners handsomely, but not everyone is a winner

[bitcharmer]

This is very misleading. The experience for overwhelming majority of men is quite the opposite. You have to be really good looking to be successful on Tinder; that's what it boils down to. For the >90% of blokes Tinder is a scam.