[PairTheBoard]

No. That's the beauty of Aisthesis's approach. He's looking at all 52c2 = 52*51/2 = 1326 possible starting hands - each of which IS equally likely. Then when it comes time to look at a hand ranked say 110, he counts all combinations of cards that make up the top ranked hands in the Skalansky Hand Ranking system. His method is simple, sound, and I think gives a pretty accurate result.

As far as practicality I think this is like a lot of innovations. Until the knowledge is available people can't think of much use for it. But once the information is available and you have it right in front of you, people start getting ideas.

Look, there's been all sorts of computer generated results for how a hand fares going to showdown against 1,2,3,...9 random hands. How practical is that information? When does that actually happen? Yet people still LOOK at that information because it gives them a better idea of how a hand is likely to perform in actual Realistic situations. It sheds LIGHT on things. It's part of Poker Theory - which is the topic of this Forum.

Having an idea how your hand compares to the best hand it is likely to face depending on the remaining players yet to act seems like something poker players would be interested in. But like I said before, there is natural resistance to any new idea.

PairTheBoard