Why is 500-600 ranked in rapid so competitive?

I saw a YouTube video of a dude with an 1150ish ELO in rapid and he played 12 blunders in a game.

I'm sitting around 500-600 (relatively new to chess, just starting to win more than I lose) and I have never seen my opponent play anything close to 12 blunders, nor have I. And if I'm being honest, it isn't uncommon for me to see people play 1-2 blunder games in 500-600, which aren't even usually awful blunders either.

I am genuinely shocked by how bad I've seen 800-1100 play in videos and streams in comparison to the 550s I'm getting in rapid, feels like I'm playing should-be 900s every rapid game. Guess that's what happens when they start your ELO so dang high after just creating an account.

I notice most blunders of my opponent, just not my own until after I do it lol.

In reality I have gold so I watch the analysis for almost every game, people rarely (and I really mean rarely) hang pieces. Idk if it's just the people I run into but I think this range is just really difficult.

My theory is that since they start your ELO high, people who start and are relatively new to chess drop down to about 400, and then they really start learning and developing strategy. Whereas in the 800s, you can still get people on their initial drop down if that makes sense, as opposed to a gritty battle of two opponents who really both deserve to be 800-900 players.

hmm, that seems strange. Almost all my games have many errors on my part, and I should beat most people <1000 99% of the time. Is it possible you are just not realizing the blunders? Anyone in the rating range you gave will likely make many mistakes every game. If it's the quantity that seems off, I notice that I am for some reason way more observant when watching other people play than my own games. Either way, good luck with your chess!

Also, I salute your bio haha

The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which a person's subjective confidence in his or her judgments is reliably greater than the objective accuracy of those judgments, especially when confidence is relatively high.[1][2] Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities.

Blunders don't happen in a vacuum. When peers play each other, they tend to blunder less than when they play someone better.

Remember as your Elo rises, you tend to play more accurately, but the positions tend to gradually become more complex, and your opponents get better at putting more pressure on your position. You can't judge a player by their worst game. You have to look at their typical games. 

I just took a quick look on your last game which you have lost (against Rikita) and there were huge blunders on both sides. My suggestions: first: try a solid opening. A move like f2-f3 in the opening is almost never a good move; all chess teachers will tell you this. Try to develop your pieces instead of pushing your pawns forward and try to castle asap. 

Haha glad I got a laugh out of it

Again:

I just reviewed your 3 most recent (long time control!) games using the strongest chess.com eval

Game 1

Inaccuracies: 0

Mistakes: 3

Blunders: 10

Missed Wins: 0 (But your opponent had 8!)

Game 2

Inaccuracies: 7

Mistakes: 7

Blunders: 4

Missed Wins: 2

Game 3

Inaccuracies: 4

Mistakes: 1

Blunders: 2

Missed Wins: 3

But I’m sure you probably weren’t trying

The ELO system is not a guarantee that a player can play a bad game or not. It puts forward a certain regularity. It is much the same in many other areas of life.

I will let you guess.

Sweet thoughts

If you folks still haven't figured out that this is a trolling attempt , there's something wrong with you.

If you deserved to be a higher rating, you would be. People at 1000 play better than those at 800 and so on... it's simply math. You can't draw some conclusions from one video of where someone played bad. Everyone blunders, those higher up than you simply blunder less and play better overall. 

Of course someones rating could be inaccurate. They might still be dropping down to their actual playing strength. Either way, focus on things within your control. Your rating is accurate, that you can be sure of since you played enough games.

I don't think so, he is actually 600 rated and people do actually think like this. It's common.

Are the streamers playing rapid or something faster like blitz or bullet? People make more mistakes at faster time controls.

That King is crazy! Haha

White was playing regular chess, black was playing King of the Hill lol 

This is something important actually.

The 600 player would blunder much more when facing a 1000+ player since he will get much tougher positions.