I'm done with blitz.

You didn't know about the rating comparison on this site, agreed. Kind of obvious from your OP, no idea why you're stating it. Please continue to go on and explain why in the lack of this knowledge you assumed that all ratings are comparable, something that only the worst kind of idiot would do. I told YOU that you didn't know the ratings on this site. Why are you making out that you're now telling ME? Because you think you are. Because you are very stupid. It was also not brought to your attention by the idiot who posted a bad link, it was brought to your attention by me in the second post on this thread.

If you honestly think that you are intelligent I'm happy for you. Everyone should be happy. That includes morons. I even believe that truely evil people should be happy. Nobody benfits from from the contrary. I really do believe that.

play a few games of bullet - blitz will seem like a LONG game after a few games with 2-1 as time control

Most people on this site are too young to play with bullets. Not me, I posess a gun from the 2200's. 

Now if the OP played with bullets...uh oh, he would get a gun from the year 600....BCE.

Of course your perctile is better. You have a higher rating in a pool that has the same base rating (1200) where both of your ratings are around that mark. Both pools have a similar (I assume) mean rating too.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this simple concept after this post.

I'm going to use an example. You play 2 round robins. Completely seperate. Same game (chess, lets say), same rules, but you are the only competitor to play in both tournaments. One tournament contains 9 GMs and you. You score 0 and come last. you are the weakest player in that pool. The other tournament contains 9 4 year olds who have just been taught the rules. You score 18 (or 9 or whatever). You win every game and win the tournament. You are the best player in that pool. Understand so far?

Now, imagine the same scenario again, except that the GM tournament was blitz chess and the childs tournament was a rapid tournament. You score the same in both as before, obviously. Are you a genuis at rapid but a complete patzer at blitz? No.

This is exactly the same as the pools here on chess.com, the blitz pool attracts a higher quality of player, just not to the same extent as my example. If you still can't grasp this simple concept then you're on your own.

Chessoath cracks me up, troller. Yep, he's gonna flame me now.

For Martin Stahl:

https://www.chess.com/blog/smarterchess/chesscom-rating-comparison-2015

1289 blitz = 1600 (roughly) standard chess.com rating

1389 standard rating = 875 blitz rating on chess.com

So this is the reason why a 1289 blitz rating on chess.com is MUCH stronger than a 1389 standard-rating. 

Both pools have high rated players in them and many of them the same players.

Let's take a different tack. I lose 62% of my games in blitz. And that isn't just time based. I lose 47% in rapid. I lose around 38% in OTB (that is quick and regular combined but should be similar in just regular).

I am demonstrably  better in longer time controls.

I have explained it as well as I am willing to attempt. If you can't understand then just accept? Advice that I personally hate, but then I'm used to understanding things. You're surely not. Win percentage is not directly related. It is only related in that it gives you a very rough idea of your rating, something that we already know here so it's completely moot. It basically isn't relevent to this discusion at all.

Not per your chess.com ratings. Per your chess.com ratings, you are a substantially better blitz player than standard at least relative to chess.com players.

I haven't checked the number of games though - if you play very few of blitz, or haven't played in awhile, your ratings can be off. For example, I have 10K+ blitz games played but like 6 standard games played, all of which were from nearly 2 years ago, so my blitz rating = 1550 while my lagging standard rating is 1400s. 

If you're including non-chess.com performances, that can't be compared based on your chess.com stats, since obviously we can't judge how strong your opposition is then.

I've looked at that link before. I'm no statistician but the sample size seems low. Not only that, I'm one of the outiers on that table too. Players with my blitz correlated with an upper 1300 OTB rating.

You're still reading and quoting this link incorrectly after I told you? Why would you do that? There is no data for the chess.com standard rating pool on that page. You're using the correspondence data, which is wildy unreliable and not relevant here.

The sample size is zero. There is no data on that page relating to this discusion.

It is relevant.  Just look at the OP (anecdote, I know). His W/L/D correlate across the time controls.

My numbers may be a little skewed since I mostly play in events that have 80% of the players 300-400 points higher rated than me.  

I'm also pretty sure if I broke out my 10|0 games from the rest of the blitz games my numbers would be more aligned with my rapid ones.

edit: I checked just my 10|0 games and I have lost 50% of those. More in line with what I expected. 

By the way, I thought you were done 

You are still here, TrollOath? How cute.

I can't reason with trolls. Get a life.

Please stop being obtuse on purpose. The sample size of trying trying to provide correlation between differing pools. What confidence intervals would 400 samples provide, regardless of which particular rating is being discussed?

Dont worry about it. Just increase your time and find youir own comfortable level. Once you feel ok then just chip away at decreasing the time limit.

Thanks for the advice - I'll try that.

Sure. I'll call you kay, okay?

Well, I've decided to give blitz another go, and it's been even worse.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that everyone on this site can somehow play faster than me. 7 losses in a row today. It's unbelieveably, ridiculously frustrating. It's depressing.

The only explanation that I can give is that almost everyone is using engines to help them think quickly. 1650 - 1700 players do not play this quickly and this well over the board and that is a fact. I know from experience.