I Made 4 Fake Dating Profiles to See Which Guy Wins

Overview

The video follows a man running an “experiment” on Hinge by creating four fake dating profiles of himself, each representing a different archetype:

• Justin: womanizer / red-flag
• Elliot: therapy / emotionally intelligent green-flag “soft guy”
• Two additional variants, including:
  • a wealthy / financial bro type
  • a nerdy gamer / programmer type

His central question is: if four versions of the same guy launch at once, which profile pulls the most women—and what does that say about the women drawn to each type?

Main plot & key highlights

Ramp-up chaos & high stakes

He jokes that Hinge suddenly has “multiple versions of me,” but the setup quickly becomes high-risk due to strict app safety rules. He explains that making fake profiles is harder than people assume because of:

• Identity checks
• Device/phone number requirements
• Anti-bot measures

Photo-shoot montage (and constant logistical problems)

To create distinct looks for each archetype, he rushes between locations—such as:

• bookstore shots
• a pizzeria pizza photo
• a gaming cafe for the gamer profile

The production is chaotic, including:

• changing clothes in public (played for laughs)
• sprinting around to finish photos on time
• using multiple phones, then getting stuck when one device can’t be accessed due to a forgotten password (causing one or more profiles to drop)
• using Claude/AI to help fill out Hinge prompts (“we’re using Claude to answer questions so we don’t have to”)

Verification fear

He’s previously been banned for impersonation/misrepresentation, so he’s terrified that biometric verification will fail. The video includes tense moments of:

• “Will it work?”
• “Will it ban instantly?”

Profiles go live—then the hammer falls

After launching all profiles at the same time, one gets deleted almost immediately with a message like: “account deleted… violating terms.”

In the end, he’s left with only two profiles, forcing the final comparison between:

• Justin (red-flag womanizer)
• Elliot (green-flag soft guy)

The “which guy wins” reveal (and the presentation)

Elliot’s profile dominates attention

The big data moment is that Elliot’s soft/green-flag profile gets 52 likes in 11 hours, which shocks the creator.

He then presents the findings in a live-ish format with friends.

Audience photo-judging game

Friends participate in a mini contest, voting on which profile photos performed best (with joking prizes). They debate:

• “female gaze” style photos vs.
• more “seductive”/revealing ones

Jokes during scoring

As they tally results, they roast specific photos—including one featuring a dog that becomes a running bit (jokes about the dog’s “wrong” reaction/eye moment).

What traits women respond to (based on prompt answers)

Based on the prompts and responses, the creator frames the results like this:

• Justin (womanizer) Women who liked the “red flag” prompt seem to prefer:

  • game-playing energy
  • more manipulative/flirty vibes
  • a “picky/high-attention” feel

• Elliot (soft guy) Women who responded to Elliot’s prompts gravitate toward:

  • competitiveness and determination
  • romance-oriented framing
  • “emotionally intelligent” and goal-driven, not merely “nice”

Final conclusion

His takeaway boils down to: “good guys don’t come last.” He argues that:

• the more serious/proper profile attracts women seeking something more real
• the womanizer profile attracts women interested in casual/sexier dynamics

Meta acknowledgement

He admits the methodology isn’t perfect (people might guess who he is, likes could reflect order/first-impression effects, etc.), but says recognition was minimal.

Standout reactions & recurring comedic bits

Recurring themes include:

• constant fear of bans and verification failures
• absurdity of matching multiple “archetypes” while keeping rules consistent (age/height preferences, “seeking long-term but open to short-term,” etc.)
• friends repeatedly interrupting with commentary, teasing photos, and joking about outfits
• frequent moments connecting dating-app behavior to personality stereotypes—exaggerated for comedy

People / archetypes appearing

• Justin Lam — womanizer/red-flag profile (impersonation archetype)
• Elliot Choi — green-flag therapy/emotionally intelligent “soft guy” profile (impersonation archetype)
• Brian — tech/gamer/programmer archetype (later dropped)
• Andrew — affluent/charismatic “financial bro” archetype (also impacted by bans/issues)
• The creator — narrator running the experiment
• Yvonne — photographer assistant helping with images and multiple phones
• Charlie — helps with filming/photo production for additional shots
• Claude/AI — used to generate answers to Hinge prompts
• Additional friends/audience members — participate in the presentation (some named briefly, others referenced by first name during voting)

Summary

By building four fake versions of himself and launching them simultaneously on Hinge, he finds that the “good guy” archetype (Elliot)—emotionally intelligent and more serious-leaning—ends up being the most successful. The womanizer profile (Justin) draws a different audience.

Overall, the video plays out as both a dating-app “science experiment” and a comedy about logistics, AI assistance, verification anxiety, and strict ban systems, ultimately narrowing the results to two surviving profiles.