Beating Stronger Players but Losing to Both Slightly Lower and Similarly Rated Players

Hello there, I had a question for those willing and able to answer.

Recently it seems as though in both blitz, and even more so in bullet, I consistently beat 1500’s and 1600’s yet lose to others in the 1000-1299 range much more frequently (about a 50% W/L ratio). My rating in both is about 1250 at the moment yet I have had my rating fluctuate from 1000 - 1500 in both game modes. Some days I play much more poorly and other days I feel indestructible.

I read somewhere else that it’s possible that one might focus more when I am playing a higher rated player. I believe that’s possible but I don’t consider any rating good until it’s around 1800 so I’m not sure that’s the case. Another more likely possibility in my estimation is that I have taken a few opening lesson courses on the site and 1500’s and 1600’s are more likely to be somewhat acquainted with the theory so I know what to do. When lower rated players come across the Pirc or the Dutch Defense, perhaps they don’t know how to approach it and not knowing how to punish their inaccuracies as I only know book moves and master recommendations could be a reason. I believe that this could be one factor, but I would think that there would another factor as to why I play better against 1300+ players. It seems once I get past 1300, I can stay in the 1300 - 1500 range with few problems unless I’m very tired, etc. At that point it might then creep down to 1000 and then I am stuck between 1000-1299.
I am also not sure if I see an 1100 or 1200 rating and think that it is a novice, even if it’s my own rating, and then underestimate my opponent and play more sloppily. I am not sure how I can gauge whether or not that is the case.

TL;DR: How can one figure out why their rating fluctuates between 1000 and 1500 for blitz and bullet and why does it seem like it’s easier to beat 1300-1650 players in these game types as opposed to 1000-1299 players?

Thank you :)

Beating stronger players huh

Well it could just be coincidence maybe when your fighting the lower players they really are in the range of 1800-2000 and are just gaining the points neccesary to be seen as more of a threat

I face this aswell

 

I believe that I saw a 300 ELO disparity would mean that the higher rated has around an 85% chance of winning the game, while someone 400 ELO higher has around a 90% chance of winning the game. In my experience with bullet and blitz being rated around 1250, I would say that this is strange considering I might win 75% of my games against 1500’s and 1600’s. Compared to my rating, these are supposed to be strong players. I know that “strong” is relative. I am not crushing masters, just players that I statistically shouldn’t be. I find it peculiar. I believe I am about 1400 - 1500 ELO in Standard but if I am equally good at blitz and bullet (or bad, depending on your frame of reference), then I should be consistently beating lower rated players, which I believe I can in Standard.

If rychessmaster had a knack at beating 3000+ players but couldn’t get past 2750 due to not being able to consistently beat players in that rating range, that would be an oddity. A 300-400 point difference is the same at any level of the game in predicting outcome.

I wonder if this is mostly psychological then. If true, then maybe you are trying your best against higher rated players and just assuming to win versus others (which is why you lose to them). If this is the case, then simply treat every game as expecting the opponent to find the best moves

Thank you for your perspective.

I believe so too. I have a pretty good score against 2000+ players because I enjoy the challenge and I never expect to win at any point in time, but I can't win against players at my level consistently enough to reach that level.

I will keep that in mind.

It's most likely a sample size issue.

You haven't played a lot of games. Sometimes people just go on hot streaks or cold streaks because of pure luck.