OK, you now know that your difficulties in seeing detail on Jupiter is not something that can be solved through the use of "better" magnification -- and I'm in absolute agreement with that.
You also now know that 2-inch eyepieces are not chosen for higher magnifications, but for their lower magnifications and wider true fields of view.
That's progress!
So, what about seeing detail on Jupiter?
First off, I dislike the use of the term "bands" when referring to Jupiter's Belts and/or Zones. This goes back to my beginnings in this hobby -- back in the 1960s, when I read book after book on astronomy, even before I had my first real terescope (which had half the theoretical resolution of your telescope and 1/4 the light-gathering power). I learned early on that those so called "bands" have names, with the two most prominent dark ones being the North and South Equatorial Belts. The dark "bands" are belts. The light "bands" are zones and they each have their own individual names. But that's really not at all about seeing detail on Jupiter . . .
You've seen Jupiter's two major belts (which an experienced observer can usually see with a 1-inch telescope at 67x). A 130mm telescope of the highest quality, used by an experienced observer is capable of showing far more than just those two belts. It's also capable of showing structure within those belts, festoons in Jupiter's Equatorial Zone and limb darkening related to Jupiter's location relative to the Earth and the Sun. It's even capable of showing Jupiter's moons as being of different sizes and different colors -- sufficient detail to be able to recognize which moon is which -- without having to consult a reference.
But that's with an experienced observer and a 130mm telescope of near-perfect quality -- neither of which a typical beginner will l ikely have. So, what's happening in your situation?
Telescope quality is undoubtedly at least part of the problem. And I'm not referring to eyepieces nor Barlows. I've used the cheapest eyepiece imaginable with one of the highest-quality 130mm telescopes on the planet and was able to see more detail on Jupiter than I could see when using a high-quality TeleVue eyeplece with a larger (but lower quality) telescope. And just how cheap was that cheapest eyepiece? Well, it came with a telescope that sold for $15 when brand new. That eyepiece conssted of four uncoated plastic lenses. So, don't try to solve your Jupiter difficulties by wasting money on high-quality eyepieces.
Ah, but experience. That's something that beginners tend to overlook. Three true stories:
1) One night I was observing Jupiter with a 250mm telescope (yes, larger than your telescope, but keep reading). A shadow transit of one of Jupiter's moons was in progress. My son (inexperienced in using telescopes) came for a look. He was unable to see the small, dark shadow of the moon on Jupiter's bright clouds. I described precisely where to look for the shadow. My son looked again, but still could not see it. I made a quick sketch for him to use as a reference. But still, he was unable to see that shadow -- which by the way was glaringly obvious to me. Experience vs. Inexperience.
2) One night I took a 102mm telescope (smaller than your telescope) to a school to show the students some celestial sights. Jupiter was one of our targets. Upon pointing the telescope at Jupiter I immediately noticed that once again, a shadow transit was in progress (They occur frequently with Jupiter and its Galilean moons). But this time, after that experience noted in #2 above, I didn't inform anyone of the transit. Instead, I requested each person to carefully describe all that they noticed on Jupiter. No one mentioned seeing a tiny black dot on the planet. Experience vs. Inexperience.
3) One evening a young guest (who eventually became and adult and gained employment with a major planetarium company) was with me when I was working on an observation and sketch of Mercury. I was working on the shadings of albedo (lighter and darker) features that I could see on the planet. When asked if he could see those features, I was somewhat surprised by his response. He stated that he couldn't even see the planet's phase -- again, something that was obvious to me. In fairness, the seeing conditions were not very good, but an experienced enough observer develops a kind of brain "software" that can filter out much of the effects from poor seeing conditions -- much like some of the digital software "magic" that imagers use. Anyway, this is another example of the difference between experience and inexperience in using an astronomical telescope.
So, what's the point of all of this?
a) Don't waste money trying to buy yourself better views -- at least not with the telescope that you have -- especially when it comes to eyepieces.
b) Experience matters! An inexperienced observer would be lucky to see half of what a more experienced observer could see when observing the same planet, with the same telescope, at the same magnification, on the same night, etc.
Regardless of the quality of your telescope, until you've become more experienced, you will not be able to see all that your telescope is capable of showing you.
How to become a more experienced observer quickly: Observe as much as possible. Take notes when observing. Make the effort to see as much as you can possibly see and record even the subtlest of details on an at-the-eyepiece sketch.
There have been times when I've observed Jupiter or Mars for more than an hour before even beginning a sketch. One will see more when one observes, as opposed to just taking relatively quick looks.
As you've likely discovered, when looking through a telescope, you're looking though an ever-changing atmosphere with a telescope that may be compromised by thermal effects. You're not looking at a static, non-changing image. You're looking at something that is constantly changing. It takes a bit of experience to train the eye-brain system to pick out the real details from what is often a more or less turbulent view.
Be patient. Training the eye-brain system isn't something that takes place overnight.
