The inclusion of age range is a little silly.
Female Delusion Calculator

I'm actually well above the 90th percentile according to this, and I'm still rejected and treated like garb age. He should add something about being a mediocre extrovert  that's the real qualifier.
This, this and definitely this.
Same situation here. I know that plural of anecdotes is not statistics, but if you're an introvert you're going to get killed out there even if you have everything else going for you. 
The probabilities on that website are somewhat suspect.
For instance, take the default inputs (Age 2040, any race, 6' height, $80k income). That gives a probability of a U.S. male meeting those standards as 3.1%.
Now let's say you relax one of those standards. Adjust the age range to 1840. That should increase the probability of someone meeting the standards (because one of the constraints has become less binding). It doesn't. Instead, the number the website gives you is 2.8%. That's lower than before. By relaxing the standards, the website claims you have decreased the probability of someone meeting those standards. That's impossible.
Now make one of the standards stricter. Rather than using a wider age range, make it narrower. Say 3040, rather than 2040. That should mean there are fewer people meeting the standards. Nope. Not according to the website. It now says 5.5% of men meet those standards.
It's obvious why that's happening (because it's using the age range to adjust the denominator rather than the numerator), but their choice to do that means the website's calculations do not actually reflect the true probability of finding someone that meets the users' standards. (That, plus the critique mentioned by some other posters that the filtering criteria they allow are not necessarily independent)

Read.
It's the probability of finding such a man in the age range x to y.
The probabilities on that website are somewhat suspect.
For instance, take the default inputs (Age 2040, any race, 6' height, $80k income). That gives a probability of a U.S. male meeting those standards as 3.1%.
Now let's say you relax one of those standards. Adjust the age range to 1840. That should increase the probability of someone meeting the standards (because one of the constraints has become less binding). It doesn't. Instead, the number the website gives you is 2.8%. That's lower than before. By relaxing the standards, the website claims you have decreased the probability of someone meeting those standards. That's impossible.
Now make one of the standards stricter. Rather than using a wider age range, make it narrower. Say 3040, rather than 2040. That should mean there are fewer people meeting the standards. Nope. Not according to the website. It now says 5.5% of men meet those standards.
It's obvious why that's happening (because it's using the age range to adjust the denominator rather than the numerator), but their choice to do that means the website's calculations do not actually reflect the true probability of finding someone that meets the users' standards. (That, plus the critique mentioned by some other posters that the filtering criteria they allow are not necessarily independent) 
Read.
It's the probability of finding such a man in the age range x to y.Yes, I know what is says. That is what I was referring to in my comment that they are using the age ranges to adjust the denominator rather than the numerator.
My point is that using that method for calculating probabilities is not appropriate for what the website purports to do. If the aim of the website is to tell women how likely it is to find a man who meets their standards, expanding the range of ages they are willing to date should increase rather than decrease the likelihood of success. If it doesn't, then the method chosen by the site to determine success probability should be revised.
That said, I highly doubt there are any women who use that website...