Sandbagging

There are obvious sandbaggers, who resign many games and then "shock" their opponents, who think that they are weak.
But there are some people, I saw, who are 300-400 points lower currently than their peak rating. Obviously they also play on the level of their peak rating. It's very difficult to draw a line, where simple rating variation goes into sandbagging.
But we need to consider a psychological phenomenon: some people can sandbag subconsciously or unintentionally.
And here is an example of a scheme of their thinking:
A player "A" has 2600 rating peak. But currently he has a bad luck, and, getting mad of losses, he sabotages his rating, playing very messy. So he can fall to some 2200 rating points. Then, often subconsciously, he feels "good", when he with his low rating takes away points from people rated 2400-2500. It is not obvious kind of sandbagging. And it is just one example. A player, who does it, can do it subconsciously.
But the thing is: this is what we see in life, this is what we see in chess, if we understand human mind.
People like to put down others.
Such kind of sandbagging is one of its manifestations.
So, the question is: where is that edge between simple rating change and sandbagging? How many points from the peak rating will be sandbagging? 300, 400, 600 or other variants?

Sandbagger's most likely have a rating difference of over 735.

If you want to have a 25% or a 75% chance of winning, then select players in the range of ±193 rating difference.

There is a chart on page 118 : regles_en_ligne.pdf
fqechecs.qc.ca/article/regles-officielles-des-echecs-2012

It shows that a player having 735 points higher than their opponent has 100% chances of winning.

On the Internet, people play with all the distractions of home life. Its going to fluctuate more than OTB tournament ratings.

To answer your question you will have a troll of answers. I think the chart shows lots of probabilities.

Does this site have a automated minimum sandbagging rating number?

@toscani not everyone, even in Canada, understands French!

@Tangelo777 Is this any easier ?

From the top link, it brought me to this pdf link: echecsmontreal.ca/regles_en_ligne.pdf
See page 118 and then just read the numbers.
From left column to the right:
C1: Difference between the rated players.
C2: Likely outcome from the better rated player.
C3: Likely outcome from the least rated player.
C4 = C1
C5 = C2
C6 = C3

I listen to biggie smalls/red hot chilli peppers sometimes at the same time as playing and mostly lose haha

For those who cannot read French:
http://chess.ca/handbook#section-4

According to the above link: 413c
The rating difference between the two players must not exceed 400 points.

Maybe we should have tournament pairing limits of ±400 and not be concerned about category tournaments.

The more I play with players of my rating, the less I am exposed to the sandbagging effect. Players can only sandbag so much before getting detected.

@toscani
Look at this game:
en.lichess.org/KyZvCnGP
Does my opponent play like a 1200 here? I underestimated my opponent and got punished.

@toscani
Lichess rating system is different from CFC because glicko2 is different from Elo. Here the fair value is 500 which is higher than 400 at Elo because Glicko is more stable so the rating change from a single game is lower.
Different people have already brought up your suggestion and it has been rejected before because the tournaments need to be fair for everyone and not award prizes to lower rated players; the matching system relies on current standing so it's good in determining the winners of the tournaments; the sandbaggers should not be awarded. If we want to be fairly paired, we are free to create and accept seeks with whatever criteria we like the most.

In short, the player played like a brilliant 1200.

Before I even looked at the game ...
I first looked at the date the player joined and the second thing was the number of games played. Then the highest rating of 1669 attained reference the profile. It was not reflected in the perf/classical details. In that section it show a player at max 1385. I guess provisional ratings are not recorded as highest rating attained.

If I simply compare your lowest rating profile: 1470 and the opponent with a lowest rating of: 1146 ... then the match was possible for the lower rated player to win by 13%.

A provisional rating is less than 25 games, but it takes way more than that to stabilize a rating. It should take about 300 matches against a similar rated players having also at least 300 stable games to say that player is in that category range.

Your opponent only has about 80 games. It might not be called a provisional rating, but it certainly does not reflect the actual potential of the player.

The graph shows white always had the upper hand. That does not make it easy for Black.
What made it so easy for White was Black's opening with 7 questionable moves at a cost that had a value loss of about 4.9 pawns. That type of loss is very hard to recover from and the last blunder lost the game.