Why are 2+1 bullet players stronger than 1+0 bullet players?

I notice there are a lot of players who play almost exclusively 2+1 bullet, and a lot of players who play exclusively 1+0. There are some in between of course, but mainly these two "bullet" pools are separate. 

The 2+1 bullet players, in my opinion, are much stronger than the 1+0 bullet players, meaning that if you took a player from the 1+0 pool (basically, someone who plays mostly 1+0 bullet) and forced them into the 2+1 pool for a dozen games or so, their rating would definitely go down. 

I don't know why, but the 2+1 bullet pool is very strong for their ratings.

IMO the strategy and evaluations of increment vs no increment games are different, which means people tend to specialize in one or the other. My guess is anyone who switches will find the other type harder.

But ok, maybe 2|1 is simply a stronger pool, I don't know.

On what do you base your affirmationn?

There is a huge world between 1 and 2+1, 2+1 is almost three times as much as 1+0, and, I imagine, at your level, the ability to win most won endgames without being flagged, thus allowing to play more the board and less the clock.

In all fairness, we should also throw some 2+1 players into the 1+0 pit and see how they do.

If you are one of the few that play both 2+1 and 1+0, I'm ready to believe you, although it might just be that you are better at 1+0.

Then my two cents are that players who prefer slow TC are better than player who don't, and they prefer 2+1 over 1+0.

I think the increment is the difference - in non-increment bullet games, the games usually end in a premove frenzy. I sometimes watch Rensch's videos, and have seen him somehow fall to checkmate in a premove frenzy when he was a rook up (I think).

This explanation makes alot of sense...if a player cant count on winning as many games through flagging, youd think the player would be better....

You don't know why? For me the answer is obvious. 2+1 is essentially a 3 minute game, in some cases even longer than 3 minutes. So it can't be considered as bullet. 2+1 is for players who can't play fast enough to be good at 1 minute but want to show off a good bullet rating, so they play 2+1 which gives them a false impression that they're good at bullet.

Understand that 2+1 and 1+0 are two completely different games, any trick that works well in 1+0 utterly fails in 2+1; so obviously a player who is good at 1+0 wouldn't be as good at 2+1. This is true for the 2+1 player as well.

As someone who is weak at anything under 30 minutes on the clock, this is a guess, but the quality of the 2+1 games is sure to be better than the 1+0 games, so the quality of play should be better for the same player at 2+1 than 1+0.  It should also be true that the shorter the game, the less the differences in skill levels between two players will play into the scoring: you need to be able to recognize at a glance patterns that don't allow an early Scholar's Mate or Pawn Fork of two Pieces, etc.

2+1 online is the closest I find to 3+2 OTB...I agree the 2+1 pool is stronger than the 1+0

2 + 1 is almost identical to 3 + 0, except when your opponent is trying to run you out of time in an opposite coloured bishop endgame.

No offence, but those who are using increment time, like 2+1, and hate all who play 1+0, are afraid of real bullet and real speed. Sometimes it can be pathetic.

In my 40s, I played over 120 moves in a one-minute game using the touch pad on my laptop. In my 60s, my reflexes are slower so I play 2 1.

I insist. Online 2+1 is the closest there is to 3+2 Over the Board.

I am horrible at both.