2-7 worst hand?

[slickpoppa]

Ok, so every announcer on ESPN likes to remind us that 2-7 is the worst starting hand in a multiway game. I'm not saying that it isn't, but has this really been PROVEN mathematically? Is it even possible to? 2-3 can be a slightly better hand to play becasue it can make more straights, but nevertheless, 2-7 will win more often against 9 random hands all played to the river. A better standard for determining which is hand is worse would take into account more realistic betting scenarios. But any simulation you come up with is arbitrary and every game of poker is different.
In the end it doesn't really matter, but the math nerd in me is bothered when people say something like it is a law when it is really just conventional wisdom.

[cnfuzzd]

Follow the link Hot Nude Cheerleaders (http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm)

peace

john nickle

[slickpoppa]

Thanks for that. My copy of Winner's Guide to Texas Hold'em Poker by Ken Warren has different numbers. According to the charts in that book, 2-7 wins approximately 4% of the time and 2-3 wins approximately 3% of the time.

[cnfuzzd]

Not a problem. I dont keep up on the book threads that much, but i think you might want to take warrens book out and burn it. From what ive heard its terrible.

peace

john nickle

[ohgeetee]

That's -EV unless you can borrow the match and not have to return it.

[cnfuzzd]

True, I wasnt thinking. Give it to someone you dont like and play poker against.

peace

john nickle

[slickpoppa]

Yeah, I realized the book was trash a long time ago, but I thought they couldn't screw up cutting and pasting some statistical tables. I guess i should have known better since the book has ads for how to beat video poker in the back.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

72o, with no 2 card straight and flush potential plays worse than 32o in a multiway pot in a limit game.

Heads up, hot and cold, 72o obviously dominates 32o.

from twodimes:

Holdem Hi: 1712304 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
7s 2h 956677 55.87 444768 25.97 310859 18.15 0.649
3c 2d 444768 25.97 956677 55.87 310859 18.15 0.351

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so every announcer on ESPN likes to remind us that 2-7 is the worst starting hand in a multiway game. I'm not saying that it isn't, but has this really been PROVEN mathematically? Is it even possible to? 2-3 can be a slightly better hand to play becasue it can make more straights, but nevertheless, 2-7 will win more often against 9 random hands all played to the river. A better standard for determining which is hand is worse would take into account more realistic betting scenarios. But any simulation you come up with is arbitrary and every game of poker is different.
In the end it doesn't really matter, but the math nerd in me is bothered when people say something like it is a law when it is really just conventional wisdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some situations 72o is worse, while in other situations 32o is worse. All-in heads-up against a random hand, 32o is worse. In full-table ring-game play, 72o is worse, since 32o has some straight potential, while 72o will usually need to hit two pair or better to be playable at all. But neither is as bad as (73)2 rainbow in stud, (J2)9 rainbow in stud-8, (KK)K in razz or 2222 in Omaha-8.

[pokerstudAA]

Do not spend excessive time worrying about it and just fold.

[xrongor]

sure its a losing hand, but there are few things in poker sweeter than having someone fold to your raise and turning up the 7-2. you've done some advertising and took down a pot. now dont play it again.

randy

[fimbulwinter]

a standing ovation for that post

[fimbulwinter]

i do that too from time to time. the irony here is that the table image bonus i get from that move adds enough value to monsters that i think i'd be worse off if i never got dealt 72o (i wouldn't mind getting dealt it a LOT less though, i only need it once a night).

thus the paradox: by being the worst hand, it is not.