Why do I suck (1500)?

This might have been tongue in cheek, and maybe I'm being too serious, but if you're taking the given advice to heart then this kind of game should feel like a total waste.  The advice to analyse after blitz games, with or without a computer, play long games, find ways to correct problems, etc all boils down to the advice "do some hard work"

If you sit back and let houdini spit moves at you then you're not doing any work at all.  You have to think critically and second guess and find improvements.  During the game, after the game, whenever.  If houdidni gives you an odd move, then try to beat it.  Explore why it works, explore why your move doesn't work.  This is what makes you better.  Reading a book does nothing for you if you don't engage it.  Ask questions, think critically, take notes, work the exercises, whatever.  All the advice always boils down to put in some hard work and you'll improve. 

Books, analysis, games, even getting a coach can all be done without working hard, and if that's the case you'll never see improvement.

It's not an opinion it's a logic point of view.

"It's not an opinion it's a logic point of view."

They aren't exclusive, it is an opinion.

Just because I use a computer doesn't mean I don't think about it.

Of course not.  And I'm sure >99% of us use computers to help analyse.  I was just making a point.

I emailed Dan Heisman to see if he knew what you might have read, and he couldn't remember having written anything like what you say you read. He stated that his views on this topic are well-represented by points 1, 3, 4, and 5 in the following Novice Nook article: Getting the Edge.

Those points of advice are as follows (but see the article for further discussion on these):

1) The advice: Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake.

3) The advice: Play as many very slow games as possible (where the game is played with a clock, and each player has at least one hour to complete the game).

4) The advice: Use about ten percent of playing time for fast games.

5) The advice: Play fast games with the same increment as in meaningful games.

As you can see, he obviously doesn't believe that slow games are wasted energy after a point or that one should focus on blitz, so you should stop quoting Dan Heisman as saying "advanced players" should focus more on blitz and that slow chess is wasted energy, unless you can actually dig up a source. He offered to discuss it with you if you care to call or skype him (contact info), so I think it's fair for me to invoke Occam's razor at this point and conclude that you simply misinterpreted what Heisman said or confused Heisman with somebody else entirely.

No, I know what I read. He has written a lot, I wouldn't expect him to have memorized every article he ever wrote. I certainly don't remember everything I've written.

All I can suggest is to try and find trends in the games you're losing. If you can do that then you'll at least know what to work on.

At lower levels, its easy to be like, "You should learn this endgame or you need to work on basic tactics..." but at a certain point it just comes down to playing lots of games and analyzing them afterwards. I think that's the value of blitz, once you gain enough experience, because (as FM Hayward said) it gives you "volume of material" for study and analysis.

The formula is random, it's not an opinion cus it's true.

I believe the burden of proof is now on you. Actually, it always has been on you, but now the opposing party had done the work.

Whether Heisman has memorized every article he ever wrote is not relevant. The better question is whether he would remember recommending something that is the opposite of what he actually believes and has written about in many other places.

Regardless of what you think you read though, it's clear that he does not believe playing more blitz than slow chess is a good strategy for chess improvement.

There is no burden of proof. I said I read something by Heisman, and you don't believe me. Do you think I care? Do I have any vested interest in you? Does it concern me at all what you think? No. I know better than to waste my time on the internet, arguing with morons. I'm sorry you lack the intellectual capacity to understand this concept, but I'm really not interested in helping you.

If you want to pretend that Heisman has some old-fashioned and absurd hatred of blitz, that is fine with me. You can run along and believe whatever you want.

Ah yes, case in point.

I'm not the one who comes to other people's threads and starts arguing with the original poster. That's you. You are the troll. Go home, you are not capable of constructive dialogue.

I am home.  You're the one in North Korea.

Are you done trolling yet?

Nope.

I'll take that as no, you can't prove what you said. 

Your ad hominem only weakens your stance, but i won't let that detract from the main point of you not having proof.

Strawman. I've never said Heisman has an old-fashioned and absurd hatred of blitz. Others have said that Heisman recommends 10% of study time be dedicated to blitz or something along that line.

Uh-oh, "ad hominem" and "strawman" in one post.  Those critical thinking seminars are mining some rich veins for sure.