"White Scores Badly" / "Black Scores Below Average"

"WHITE scores badly" and "Black scores below average."
Those terse words sum up my chess career, at least according to ChessBase's 2019 Mega database.
I have 862 games in Mega19, scoring 42% ("badly") as White, and 40% ("below average") as Black.
As should be readily apparent, the verbal descriptions are relative, ie a player is expected to score more as White than as Black.
Generally speaking, White scores 55% across most large databases (I will leave you to work out Black's percentage).
So I score significantly below the norm with both colours, but this is not unusual for someone with a modest rating, just as stronger players tend to score "above average," "well," etc.
How accurate are the conclusions in Mega19? This naturally depends on how many games a player has in the database.
My total of 862 is definitely well above the mean. It is rare, when I prepare for opponents, that I find they have more games in the database than I do.
Even so, 862 is just 23.7% of the actual number of competitive games I have played - in my personal database I have 3,637 games, including correspondence ones (Mega19 does not have correspondence games as ChessBase markets them separately).
My real career percentages are 51% as White - four percentage points below the norm - and 47% as Black - two percentage points above the norm.
So, while the exact percentages are different, Mega19 has got it right: I perform better, relatively speaking, as Black.
By the way, I am sure we have all had the experience of talking to people who say they play just as well, or even better, as Black. I have yet to meet one who has been able to tell me, even approximately, what his actual scores are with both colours.
When you are preparing to play people, and you discover they play relatively better as White or as Black, what does this tell you?
I am now leaving the realm of objective numbers and instead giving opinions, but, having thought about this quite a bit, I like to think there is more than just a grain of truth in my conclusions.
Opponents Play Better As White
*Like to have the initiative (decline any gambit they offer if you possibly can)
*May have a pet system, eg 1.b3, which is reeled off ad nauseum (beware trying to reply with something offbeat - they have probably seen it before)
*Could well be happy going for a small edge in a "boring" position they can grind out to a win, or at worst a draw (thus avoiding big rating losses)
Opponents Play Weakly As White
*Do not know much theory
*Unlikely to be able to refute wild Black gambits (try the Englund?)
*May be stodge merchants whose main aim in chess is to avoid defeat, and so will agree to a draw at the first sign of Black activity
Opponents Play Better As Black
*Defend well (time to give the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit a rest)
*Have a repertoire of sharp lines to catch unwary opponents
*Will be well-prepared for your main lines (time to try that new variation you have been thinking about)
Opponents Play Weakly As Black
*Defend poorly and are thus highly vulnerable to gambits
*Are scared of theory and so play dubious lines, hoping their surprise value will make up for other deficiencies
*Tend to delay castling in open games, leaving the king vulnerable, and/or tend to castle early in closed games, when giving the king's address away early is often a mistake