Putting numbers on dating

Inspired by a certain blog, I like to put numbers on dating. Dating is uncertain and scary. Numbers are (to me) familiar and predictable. Numbers help me feel like I understand my dating life better and like I know what to adjust. That is, they help me feel like I have some kind of control in this insane process.

It's probably worth noting I haven't yet gone on a date. That's why I need the numbers — to help me get a date! Or to help me feel better about not getting one, at any rate.

I am finding two broad kinds of calculation/number useful:

1. Estimating market size. That is:
   1. How many single women my age are out there in my local area?
   2. Of those, how many are likely to be mutually interesting (i.e. I'm interested in her and she's interested in me)?
   3. Of those, how many are likely to be compatible in logistics?
   4. I estimate these with numbers. I use some real numbers here (population, % married) and some estimated from dubious online numbers (% approximately my age), and some pulled entirely out of my ass (% mutually interesting, % compatible). Here's a spreadsheet where I do the math.
2. Estimating "sales" pipeline effectiveness. That is:
   1. Lead generation rate: How many interesting single women my age am I meeting per unit time? e.g. over the last year?
   2. Burn rate: How many of those am I establishing as uninterested/incompatible vs. definitely interested? (i.e. she is moving soon, so not compatible; I asked her out and she said no or made an excuse, so not interested; I asked her out and she said yes and on our first date we established basic logistical compatibility.)

I like to use vaguely sales-inspired terms for these because it sounds so incongruent with the purpose of love.

When I calculate these numbers, I come to three conclusions:

1. Under reasonable-to-me assumptions and estimates, the market size is big. Not unusually big — still, big. There are statistically lots of women out there who I would be interested in that would also be interested in me. Many such women are also "compatible" in some sense. There's no shortage.
2. I estimate a lead generation rate around 25-30 over a period of about 1.75 years, which amounts to about one and a half candidates each month. That sounds pretty good, actually, much better than it intuitively felt like, and I suspect it's an underestimate because I forgot to put some women on the "lead lists" I made. It sounds so good so that I want to go back and check who I counted in this calculation more carefully in case I counted some women I shouldn't have counted as leads. But if accurate, this suggests my problem isn't that I'm not meeting enough women I'm interested in — I'm meeting far more than I thought, and possibly an adequate number.
3. I estimate a burn rate of about 6 over that same period. This suggests that if anything, my problem may be that I'm not being sufficiently forward in pursuing women, because I have eliminated fewer than 25% of the leads generated. I need to be chatting more. [I hypothesize; I didn't measure but I'd guess my median conversations per lead was zero and the average not much higher.] Maybe I also need to be "closing" more.

I found this a useful exercise — I already knew (from running similar numbers before) that the market size is large, and that's stable over time. I knew my burn rate was low. But I was surprised to learn my lead generation rate was so high. That tells me something about where I might want to focus my effort in this whole situation.