Why are 1800 players easier to play against compared to 1300?

I recently created an alternate account for purpose of seeing how I would match against 1600-2000 players. In the four games I played on that account, I won two, drew one, and lost one, which was quite an accomplishment for me, as I am only 1350. The games were played in a 10 minute format. In one game, I led an fierce attack in the Scotch Game, only to have my opponent to lose on time after a thinking for a long time. In another game, my opponent played like a 1300 himself; he blundered a bishop away, leaving it without a defender, and then lost. For the third game, I lost horribly in the Ruy Lopez after my opponent managed to outplay me after the opening and snagged a couple of pawns which helped fuel him in the endgame. For my fourth game, I drew against a 2000 rated player, even though I was in a winning rook and pawn vs knight and pawn endgame. I drew because I was low on time and did not want to bother trying to convert it to a win. 

Now this leads me to my main question: what makes playing 1600-1800 players feel so easy to play against, even though when I log onto my main, I win around 50% of my games and lose most to a bad start in the opening, getting low on time in a complicated middle game, or simply being worse in the endgame? Even though four players is a small sample size, I have also consistently beaten people in the open challenges section. Why is it seemingly easier for me to play against 1800's rather than 1300's? Here are the conclusions I have come up with: 1800 players tend to go for more solid, positional openings and middlegames whereas 1300's go for considerably more aggressive lines, which I am more prone to succumb; I just experienced "beginners" luck and my games against high rated players will only go downhill; there is a weird trend in which the skill level of higher rated players dips down then rises again at around the 2000 level; 1300 and 1600-1800 players are basically the same except for the fact that 1600-1800 players are more consistent with their play (for example 1300 will enter a winning position but blunder it away with a stupid mistake, something that often happens to me); and, lastly, much like the last idea, 1300 players consist of strong and weak ones: the strong ones basically are 1600 in strength but need to develop consistency and the weak ones are newly emergent players from the 1100 strength. 

Thank you for reading this. Please share your thoughts, comments, and questions on this situation below. If you have any theories why this is so, this will help straighten the situation out for me. 

Probably too small of a pool to draw conclusions. Especially as it is a blitz game. All it takes is one mistake. Of course the other player might make a mistake as well afterwards, but in a small pool if you don't make that other mistake, you win.  

That is part of the reason I don't like smaller time controls. It would be blunder happy hour for me and I don't think I would learn much that way.

I once played in a 24 hour blitz tournament on chess.com. IIRC I lost to one 1300 and one 1400.

Sometimes stuff like that happens. But if I played them 10 games I'd probably win 9. That's how it works.

So play 100 games on a new account and see where your rating ends up... also, of course, it's important to make them rated games. Often people who play unrated are trying to protect their rating because 1) they're overrated and/or 2) they're very drunk, very tired, ect.

probably because players rated <1400 are mostly casual players and that's why they play weird moves without analysing much. Even if a rating difference between 1800 and 1300 is huge, 1300s are not as bad as good players assume they are

Please show me the link all of these games.

llama there are many possible reasons to play not rated games on chess,.com. I played dozens of not rated games in exhibitions where I played with Black. This way I could beat experts and masters and grand masters who would not play me otherwise as chess.com has my rating vastly incorrect.

You played about 4 members, 4 is not that much. Try to play 10-20 games. Then see your result.

Probably because you don't know enough opening theory and don't spot the gambits played by lesser players. Higher ranked players tend to play sound openings.

Yeah thats true. You can start at 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1800, 2000

Then play rated games and get it correct.

From what experienced playing off-site is that it's an actual match over nonsense moves that don't equal an open. I'm just tryin to push structure - fortress endgames. Generally works when I'm sober, CM faster Going re1/8 on Kings indian or accelerated queens indian for the ridiculous amount of d4. Not loving KIA yet but I got a lot to learn. <3 chessable

Chess.com has my rating incorrect. My USCF is 961 but I rock with a 1803 Blitz. You can clearly tell that i have played over 700 blitz games.

On my main account it wasn't uncommon for me to beat 1600-1800 players in UTT as a 1200 blitz player.

If I can get an opening I'm familiar with like Caro or the QGD Exchange I know I have a good chance of winning.

How is that even possible?

I know what you mean!  In the real world, and OTB games, I find that games against Elo grades of about 1300 -1600 tend to be quite scrappy. Some of these players make moves which are not the best, but are difficult to find a ‘punishing’ response to. I seem to drift into a similar style in some of these games, although I shouldn’t. Perhaps this is what the OP is doing too. Also, remember that in this range you’ve got novices on the way to much better standards of play, as well as players who, a few years back, might have been playing at a level of 200-300 points higher. These will be tricky opponents. At 1600+ you’ll probably find opening theory is better and there are fewer careless or peculiar moves, making for a more structured game.

I'd love to consistently play an actual opening.

I can't wait once OTB chess is back for club players, then 900-1500 will be roadkill for me.

Once I got paired up with a 1900 USCF. I won in 15 moves. It was Grunfeld.

How would you rate my play here? (last truly sober game last night/today)? (I'm black)