Sandbagging is a real problem at 1500

If you can't beat a guy with a peak rating of 1800 you can't beat them you don't deserve to be 1800

And yes you can beat them (I have beaten plenty )even if they are underrated thats not sandbagging unless they purpusfuly lose game

In my experience this is false I beat those types of accounts all the time chess is not a pro football team

I don't want to be 1800, I want to be 1600 but I am constantly being forced to play 1800s. You seem to struggling to understand this.

Ah you are a glass half empty person. You need to change that mindset to improve. I sincerely hope you can.

This is like saying hikarus sandbagging because his peak rating is 3400 but he consistently gets to 3100

Obviously hikarus not sandbagging

I have played people that have 1,000 daily ratings, but have 1200, 1300 blitz and rapid ratings. I don't think too much about them sandbagging as I seem to win once in a while. It's the people with the same rating or close to it, that seem to make the right moves too often that have me wondering at times.

You are 800. If I play you 10 games I will win 10 games. This is how chess works. The differences between different elos are astounding which is why sandbagging is not allowed

Don't be an elitist f**k. My advice is solid. Being 800 or 800000000 is irrelevant if your mindset is weak. They are not sandbagging, you just want an excuse for when you are beaten. That is a sign of a fragile ego.

It's weird cause understanding elo and understanding chess are two different things

I understand psychology. I play chess for fun. And I'm improving at a steady pace.

Psychology is half of it the other half is actually just getting better like you can have an ego and still play chess unfortenently even if they don't mix very well usually that causes alot of problems

Several points.

1. did you know that you can set a range for your opponents? You can set a very narrow range so you don’t have to play much higher-rated players.

2. Did you know that ratings are not set in stone. Someone whose true rating is 1700 will actually vary between 1600 and 1800. This is normal variation, not sandbagging. Blitz ratings vary even more widely than ratings for rapid or classical time controls.

3. Ratings represent the relative probability that one player will beat another. In the Elo system, a difference of 200 points means that the lower-rated player should win about 25 percent of the time. A difference of 400 points means that the lower-rated player should win about 8 percent of the time. So, it is incorrect to say that you have no chance against these players.

Your rating +1 has no difference. Just do that a few hundred times, and you'll discover there is no difference.

Besides tilting or just having an off-day, another easy way to lose hundreds of rating points is drinking while playing (or whatever drug/substance of choice). Beer and blitz don’t mix! I can attest to that. Ha. Lots of people don’t take online chess super seriously. We play for fun, and are casual about our games. I might play okay after one beer, but if I keep playing while I have a second (or third!), well, you can predict the result. I guess my point is, you don’t know what your opponent is doing. Abandoning games because you suspect sandbagging seems extreme.

That's good you'll probably reach a plateau eventually try not to worry about it too much and focus on breaking it or getting better XD

If loads of people are sandbagging on chess.com (although why would such a thing have mass appeal?), then you should still play against people with higher peaks than your own. Because to sandbag, a person needs to lose games. You’ll play sandbaggers on their way back up, but you’ll also play them on their way down. So it should even out.
 
By the way OP, I see that over the last 90 days your peak rating is 1522 and your lowest rating was around 1400. Were you sandbagging?

My peak rating is 1706. I beat someone whose peak rating is 1973.

If loads of people are sandbagging on chess.com (although why would such a thing have mass appeal?), then you should still play against people with higher peaks than your own. Because to sandbag, a person needs to lose games. You’ll play sandbaggers on their way back up, but you’ll also play them on their way down. So it should even out.
 
By the way OP, I see that over the last 90 days your peak rating is 1522 and your lowest rating was around 1400. Were you sandbagging?

The last sentence, although a joke, raises a good point. I mean, I lost to a 1700 today and I'm 2000 USCF and have been like 2270 on here on an old account (and was 100 points lower OTB at that time as well). My point is, stuff happens, and the thing is once a few games haven't gone your way it messes with your mindset and you start making absurdly bad moves for your typical standard of play. This happened to me at an OTB tournament in May, I literally just got rolled off the board in one game in 20 moves or so, and ended up going like and losing 40 points. I wasn't sandbagging, I just had a horrible event (I typically perform around 1950-2100 in USCF events)

Cheaters and sandbaggers are a minor nuisance. After a moment of anger, just think of how pathetic their lives must be for them to spend time trying to manipulate their rating on a game site.
It’s only a game. The rating points are meaningless. It’s not worth getting upset or occupying any of your time. 
just let the chess.com administrators deal with them and go on to the next game.

Happened to me in blitz. 2400-2100 over the course of a few months.

Same I did a smaller tilt 2300-2100 though that was a day next day I was back at 2200 I don't typically have month long tilts