Sexton's "computer hand" Q7o

[eastbay]

Why?

eastbay

[astroglide]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q="q7"+"computer+hand"

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...computer+hand"

[/ QUOTE ]

I already googled it and came up with a bunch of answers which didn't make any sense or were just plain wrong.

Q7o is not the closest to 50% win rate against a random hand, for example. J5s is.

eastbay

[Michael Davis]

This was figured out a long time ago on a pathetic computer system. The results were completely inaccurate, but the computer did churn out Q7o as the average hand. Or, the monkeys reading the data did, I don't know.

-Michael

[Daliman]

I think it was less about average win rate and more about average holding, a slight distinction at best. I had heard in the past that J5s and Q7o were both neck and neck heads up vs a random hand.

[uuDevil]

While J5s is 50.0% heads-up in terms of equity, Q7o is 49.9% in terms of winning the hand (51.8% equity).

I know you know about this page....

[bonanz]

a couple weeks ago someone in a poker room told me it was called computer hand because in a gah-jillion simulated hands Q7 showed up more than any other pair on the flop, not necessarily referring to the winningness of the starting hand. just what I heard... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

bonanz

[daryn]

think about this a little more...

[TheGrifter]

This reminds me of the guy who said he preferred to play spades as opposed to other suited cards because he heard they were more likely to hit the flush.

[daryn]

hahaha.. what an idiot.


it's obviously diamonds that make more flushes.