[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas someone can hold 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and flop 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. They flopped the nuts...however they are a statistical underdog to someone holding 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a good definition of the nuts. On that flop, the nuts is 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], which is not a dog to any hand heads up.
[/ QUOTE ]
The nuts on that flop is any 45. It does not have to be of hearts.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you read the above carefully, you'll see that I suggested that there are multiple definitions of the nuts. So, what did your post add?
If Hold'em were a 5-card game, it would make sense to say that any 45 is the nuts, and if Hold'em were a 2-card game, 22 would be the 13th best hand. However, there are two more cards to come, and 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] is a significant underdog 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1281397
5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 0.318
5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 0.682
Given that it has 31.8% equity against 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], would you call 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] "an unbeatable hand?" Would you call it the best possible? I hope not. You can say that it makes an unbeatable 5-card hand if the game were stopped at this point, but again, that's a lousy definition.