You've probably heard about this "Game": Wait X amount of days to call him/ her; Making yourself unavailable; .... simply put: "Playing hard to get". This theorie is on the internet, in books, in movies, etc.. They're everywhere. They're like those news about wars that is reported on TV, newspapers, radio, etc. that you'd think wars happens in today's time more than ever before. But in fact they're not. Just because they're reported more than ever before due to better communication media (TV, internet, newspaper, radio) doesn't mean they happen more.

Similar to thosw war-stories it's like those "Playing hard to get"-theories: Just because they're seemingly everywhere doesn't mean, they're practiced by a lot persons.

The amounts of reports of wars in comparisson to the actual numbers of wars. Just because there's a lot of documentary, reports and news about wars doesn't mean there are more wars then in former times. In fact it's decreased. Yet the conscious about wars has increased due to the different ways of todays reports of wars: radio, tv, internet, newspapers, etc.

I think it's the same with "playing hard to get". There are tons of material on "playing hard to get" on the interwebs, forums, books, movies, etc. that people think everybody or at least more than the actual numbers really doing it.

I've never met s.o. who plays hard to get. Everyone I'm talking to said, it's stupid and in fact it is. It contradicts the logic. Why should I repel s.o. who I like? Why should my interest increase, if s.o. turns me down? The only reason this "playing hard to get" became so popular in the media is it's more exciting and funnier. Or have you ever heard of a dating movie without any drama?

To Back up my theses, that hard-to-get is only rare to find resp. should only rare to be found, here's what scientists say:
Source: "The Journal Of Experimental Education" (Volume 39, Number 3, Spring 1971) by Elaine Walster (The University of Wisconsin); G. William Walster (The University of Wisconsin); Ellen Berscheid (University of Minnesota) (link below)

"It has often been suggested that individuals will prefer dates who play 'hard-to-get'. Two experiments were conducted [...]. This hypothesis was not confirmed [...]. It appears that playing-hard-to-get is not an effective strategy for increasing one's status. Apparently, all the world does love a lover.

[...]

In sum, the present data indicate that people simply like people who like people. There is no evidence for the hypothesized effectiveness of a hard-to-get strategy. Both hard-to-get hypothesis failed to receive even a suggestion of support."

But what's your take on that?

link to this experiment: http://rapidshare.com/files/410054069/25.pdf

From personal experience? Mostly true. Some of the more clingy girls with low self confidence may respond positively to playing hard to get, but generally I find these girls annoying and don't bother sarging them. Most girls with decent amounts of self esteem get pissed off after long sessions of playing HtG because THEY are the ones that want to be chased, and not the other way around. They'll think "so what, if he's playing hard to get, then he's not gonna get any." and consequently, you don't get any.
However, it can be effectively used in the short term, but only if they don't think that you're playing HtG (otherwise, above mentioned mindset will take place) for example, if she calls/texts you several times, and you want to play HtG, don't pick up/answer. She'll get confused, start feeling the sting of rejection, start thinking twice. Then call/text back a while later apologizing for being busy or your phone running out of batteries or something, adding in something like "I'm really sorry I got cut off, we were having such a funny convo" or something of the sort.
Well that's the onl really effective way i can think of playing HtG effectively. short term only, because nobody likes the feeling of rejection.