You're not wrong, but I believe there are things people can do to find better "fishing holes" if they think outside the box.
I grew up in Los Angeles and have never actually felt at home here. Should it be any surprise that my experience dating here has been poor? I'm certainly not a hottie, but I am pretty sure I'm not ugly, either. Given all the examples of male attractiveness I've seen, I think I'm a low 7 on the decile scale. Most women out here seem to only consider 5 - 7s "settle material", but most women aren't above a 7 either, so physical attractiveness doesn't universally explain struggles with dating, not that it isn't a big part of it.
My hypothesis is that people underrate the difference in dating culture across cities and countries. I've been to enough cities and a few countries to realize that, actually, people aren't the same everywhere; cities all have different cultures with varying attitudes and levels of connection to reality. LA is fundamentally built on adults playing pretend for a living, so if you're a more analytically minded person, this is a poor place to be fishing for dates. A city built upon a different industry or values education may be a better place to find people you're compatible with.
What I think most people don't think about is how the male-to-female ratio in a city may have an impact on the dating experience. I recently did an experiment where I used Census data to examine which cities had more males than females and which ones had the opposite, narrowing the field down to just single people (never married, divorced, or widowed) between 25 and 34, and the results were quite interesting. While it's not super common for cities ever have superficially extreme imbalances, most major cities have significantly more single men in this cohort than single women.
For instance, in Los Angeles, my query over the ACS5 data from the last Census shows that Los Angeles has a male-to-female ratio of 1.18; this means that there's 18% more men than women in that city. In a major city, that's a lot of active competition.
Recently, I've been considering spending time in Boston because I already like that city and think it may be a better fit for me in the long run. In contrast to Los Angeles, Boston has a male-to-female singles 25-34 ratio of 1. Although it would be nice from a man's perspective for there to be more women than men, I think there's reason to believe that, for some men, they may suffer less competition in a city like that.
If you are curious, reader, the only major cities in the United States that I found to have significantly more women than men are Rochester NY, Cincinnati OH, Richmond VA, and District Of Columbia (having the lowest ratio at 0.89). There's a handful of other cities with a ratio Palmdale CA to find dates.
I don't have the research on hand (I'll post it here if I find it), but I remember reading about how the sex ratio impacts the way that women approach dating; if they have an abundance of options, in the case of more males than females, women are likely to be more selective and use long-term dating strategy (possibly paralysis-by-analysis or playing the numbers game), whereas they are less selective and think in the shorter term when there are fewer men. This is likely true at least to some extent in the case of the reverse gender. I'm just speaking from my perspective as a guy and the knowledge I've gathered.
Don't be like me and spend too many years fishing in the wrong hole. Find one with fewer rods already in it. ba dum tssshhhh