Where did I go wrong?

In two games I lost to the same opponent, I feel like there is a common thread but I am not seeing it.

First game:

Second game:

Where did I go wrong in these games? What could I have done better? What can I learn from them? What would help me improve in - your opinion based on these two games-?

game 1 was a little odd, lot of pawn pushing and shuffle with not much accomplished for a long while.  the combo looks good, but 25 he can take your knight safely with pawn...  he missed it but it is a mistake.  Retreat is needed, a piece up though! 28, Raxa6! seems best.   You found this later.  33 c7 just loses the pawn.  It is in a good place, try to keep it or force a piece for it, or keep it as a threat that may never even happen but distracts the opponent.   b5 or Ra7 both look like a better approach.  39 isn't fatal.  Its not even that bad, but you must watch for black's counterplay dropping the queen deep @c2.   The options look like trading queens, which still wins for you, or keeping them and looking to get his king, which isn't easy but you are in a good place.  41 QxR, am I missing something here?? That should win if nothing else by huge material lead.  Qd7 is horrid, 42 RXR is bad for you.  After 43 it is pretty well done.   Qd7 is what killed you.  You were equal, and possibly winning, up to there.   Look again at 39 RxB+ though.  That might be what you were wanting...  KxR, Ra7+, Rb7, RXR+, ...  looks solid.

I didn't have time for game 2, but you played fairly well and made a game losing blunder.   Your opening and the mutual agreement with your opponent to shuffle pieces for 20 moves deserves attention.   By move 10 you should be developed and  engaged with your opponent.   You won't do well playing like that against higher level folks.

I see no clear common thread in this 2 games, peraphs game 1 has some similarity with the game you posted in the other thread.

again without engine, the analysis isn't about tactic altough in the first game I got my self lost analyzing some line, there may be mistakes, just look to the ideas rhather than the lines, the lines may be wrong the ideas should be more likely ok.

on game 1 there's few of things worth of mention

- the very bad bishops on both of the sides.

- both neglected to develop all the pieces

- both need to place your pieces before opening the lines, so if you're gonna push a pawn put one or (better even a couple of doubled) rook on the file that will be opened and have your minor pieces looking in that zone for as much as possible.

so for instance this could have been the setup you may have wanted before playing a4 ( this an hypothetical ideal position, more likely your opponent won't let you achieve such kind of position, or at least he will try to counter your rooks with his rooks he will have his pieces well placed too and so on...)

game 2 is pretty short but you misplayed the opening.   Ba7 is premature, let him drive you back if you need to move.   You want d6 here which is the "2 good bishops" opening setup.  I use this often as white.  7 ... this is called castling into it... you just put your king in the corner pocket and then let white expose him to assault. 

The one thing you might have done to survive for a while and maybe even get back into the game was 13... Bxg, attacking his undefended knight and pinned to the rook, it also finishes development and lets loose your rooks and queen to scramble a defense around G7 or something.   There wasn't much you can do after h5, too many things pointed at your king and nowhere to run.

Conclusions: learn a better opening!