10 minutes of bullet is better than 10 minutes of rapid

Argue with me

technically it's not. but bullets much more fun so

Technically saying 10 minutes of bullet equals to 5 games and 5 time of playing an opening 5 middle games and around 2 endgames, you get more opportunities to learn pattens

Nope. You're wrong. 10 minutes of bullet doesn't automatically mean you've learned more. You've just played more games that involve clicking buttons and moving pieces around aimlessly.

Bullet = flagging

If someone's bullet rating is their highest rating and they are NOT titled, their rapid rating is probably in the 500-800 region.

Nevermind, its funny because after I posted that i checked ChessNerdYT's profile and they proved my point XD

I completely agree. I find the thrill with the timer clicking down much more enjoyable than waiting forever.

Sqjs play me to see my real rapid elo, I am just lazy to push rapid

Learning is best when a person has time to „process”what is being learned—organize, rehearse, relate to previous learning.

So, for beginners, rapid chess allows more time for learning than bullet.

Even better would be 10 minutes of instruction followed by five minutes of guided play followed by five minutes of review.

there actually is psychological research on a related topic that suggests that people who try to learn from bullet on their own will acquire mistaken concepts that will have to be corrected before they can advance.

Says the 100

I am actually almost 700 for bullet. And I am aware of my rating. It used to be much higher.

Except that's not how learning works. It is not simply mere exposure to, in this case, more games and potential patterns, to encode that information into our memories in a useful way that we can easily retrieve at a later time (another game on another day), it is better to play slow games and really think through the position and move choice. Think of it this way, if you sat in front of a computer, and played 10 hours of university lectures on a topic you're not familiar with at rapid speed so they were presented in 1 hour, do you really think you would learn as much as if you spent time working through each new concept, each step of the material and logic, and really thought it through? Of course not. It would be an hour of your time you'll never get back, and you would have learned relatively little.
Fast time controls are fun, but move choices are based upon what you've already learned, they are not the way to learn new aspects of the game. Slower games, spending time reviewing them, are the format for that. And, in addition, those games should be played against opposition who has at least an equal chance of beating you (slightly better than you is ideal, but not to the point you have no real chance). Those are the games that will require you to apply your full knowledge, and will expose the errors in your evaluations, which you get an opportunity to correct during the post-game analysis.
One bad habit is to make a move before properly evaluating the position, but that is exactly what is required in bullet - just move something. As a result, not only is one not going to spend the time training themselves how to select a move, one is developing a bad habit as well.
So, if one means best way to learn and improve, bullet is not just ineffective, it is worse than playing slower time controls given how human memory and learning work.

Many people tell me to review my games but I am broke and can only review one game per day

Are you able to look at the game on your own and try to figure out your mistakes?

That is a much more effective way to learn chess than just looking at Game Review.

Lol it’s funny because i just beat chessnerdyt with a queen sacrifice (Bullet)

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/121981160603?tab=review&move=47