[zephyr]

Although this is probably better posted in the general forum, since there has been some recent debate on posting bad beat stories here, I think it has some relevance.

Bad beat threads don't bother me as much as they do some of the others on the forum. But I got to wondering the other day: How many of these supposed "bad beats" are actually bad beats? Or I guess more generally, what is a bad beat?

Perhaps there is a generally accepted definition somewhere, perhaps not. I'd like to know what everyone on the forum thinks.

I think that there are three levels of bad beats.

The Bad Beat

def. A player is at least a 10:1 favourite at the point in the hand when the majority of the money goes in, and then goes on to lose the hand.

The Very Bad Beat

def. A player is at least a 50:1 favourite at the point in the hand when the majority of the money goes in, and then goes on to lose the hand.

The Ultimate Bad Beat

def. A player is precisely a 990:1 favourite at the point in the hand when the majority of the money goes in, and then goes on to lose the hand.

So by my definition, AQ beating AK after being all in preflop is not a bad beat. Nor is QQ over AA all in preflop. On the other hand AK beating AA when all the money goes in preflop is a "Bad Beat" by my definition.

As for "Very Bad Beats", AK hitting runner runner against 88 when the flop was 824 is a very bad beat if the majority of the money goes in on the flop, but is not, if the majority of the money goes in preflop.

Finally, the "Ultimate Bad Beat" occurs only on the flop, when the drawing hand must hit precisely two running cards. For example, AA outdraws KK on a KKx board. And of course, the majority of the money must go in on the flop here.

Of course this post has little substance, but it has been fun to think of.

Only my opinion,

Zephyr