in blitz, i always open with the king's pawn

in blitz, sicilian dragon ftw

no matter what u play as white i play c5 and as white i move anything randomly and see how i do. keeps my brain active 

SAME OPENING ALWAYS,IS BETTER,REGARDS

I like to play familiar lines so that I waste little precious time!

I like AllogenicMan's text of "I feel it is important to stick to an opening repertoire [after exploring/experimenting with many] that is based on what is most comfortable - or confident - to a player.  Time [control], in almost all instances, has little to do with [prepared] opening play."

In my opinion, any class player (under expert) should stick to a narrow selection of openings until they are quite versed with the play. Most of these players aren't strong enough tactically (and even masters, depending on then opening) to play unfamiliar openings as there can be a lot of pitfalls. It's ok to try new things if it is online chess (regardless of the time control), but in tournament play I wouldn't recommend it.

I play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, mostly in live games (1.d4 d5 2.e4) although in correspondence games I like playing 1.e4 . When faced with the sicilian defense I always play 2.c3 The Alapin variation is my favourite opening and I can tell it is one of the very few openings that I really understand When faced with 1...e5 I try to steer the game into a giuoco piannisimo despite i am a tactical player and positional play is a weakness of me, When playing as black i completely HATE the Scotch opening and the English opening I usually play giuco piano, caro kann or Falkbeer Countergambit(especially live- traps and zaps) From is also one of my favourites

Nope, don't know one opening from another anyway!

Generally, no; I pretty-well play what I feel against my particular opponent - almost always [in attempts towards] countering/responding to not only the demands of the positional requirements, but to that of what my opponent may feel [psychologically] as well. 

In other words, as White, I'll always play 1.c4, regardless of the time frame or my opponent, but I may [sometimes] play some other first-move reply [independent of the time control] as Black if I happen to know of my opponent's repertoire.  Any moves/replies after the first [either as Black or White] will only vary dependent [mostly] on the needs of the position, but additionally, often for what I [as well as my opponent's] happen to feel [appropriate to] at the moment.

I feel it is important to stick to an opening repertoire [after exploring/experimenting with many] that is based on what is most comfortable - or confident - to a player.  Time [control], in almost all instances, has little to do with [prepared] opening play.

Some [or many] masters today are adept at playing a wide variety of openings/variations, more often dependent on who [or what?] they'll be facing up to [within a tournament event or match].  I myself (in my early days [of exclusively opening with only 1.e4 or 1.d4]), would haphazardly [or blindly] resort to this kind of psychology, not only not [yet] knowing much for what it meant [nor of the often dire consequences I'd get myself into], except for perhaps basing my 'knowledge' of it with a good roll of the dice upon the chessboard! ... I've only learned much later on in my 'career[?]' as a chess-player, that it does[!] in fact, take a lot more [opening] effort in not only preparing and/or experimenting with such moves/replies [and theoretical novelties] that best seem fit for you, but that ultimately, the discovering[!] - and adoption - of just one [or two, at the very most] opening example - if completely understood - should quite often be good [and sane!] enough for most players out there.  And as for the 'time thing'[?] - that [should be] decided upon the 'chess gods', somewhere in outer space ...

And that's the way I see it! ...

In live games (whether online or offline), I do what I can to avoid letting my opponent lead me into theoretical territory that I'm not familiar with. For example, I know nothing about any of the main-line Sicilians, so when faced with a Sicilian I always play 2. c3, which despite its solidity doesn't have nearly as much theory behind it as many of the 2. Nf3 lines, and what theory there is I understand reasonably well. Similarly, I won't dare go near the Ruy Lopez in a live game.

In correspondence, on the other hand, I have access to databases, so I'm happy to study up on whatever I need to study up on as the game progresses. I simply endeavour to play the soundest move I can on every turn.

I like to "play with fire" in faster time controls: Sicilian Dragon, Dutch Def, Albin-Counter-Gambit, King's Gambit (one may say the Dragon is the most "sound" but consider the sacrificial possibilities). I wasn't happy with the choices here. "Live" can be blitz, rapid or slow. There's a major difference between G/5, G/15, G/60 and etc. (just to name a few). "Experiment with unfamiliar openings in multi-day games" seemed the most logical for me.

I play gambits in blitz, not so much to pressure my opponent, but because I like to have chances of developing my quick tactical thinking that open, lively, gambit positions frequently offer.  Despite my age, I think I am slowly improving and continue to be inspired by the quick thinking mental atheletes around here.