Minor point, but does 23o play worse than 27o thus making it worse?

[Dazarath]

I ran Pokerstove before I posted my original post. I believe the results were something like 5.5% for 32o and 4.8% for 72o and 5.x% for 62o (can't remember what the x was). I was just curious about 62o as well.

[UATrewqaz]

It's pretty simple to understand, don't know why people are having such difficulty...

72o is better in a short game, 32o better in a long game, for this simple reason...

In a short game the highest card you hold matters alot more, since it's likely the board will miss everyone. The "highness" of 7 over 3 will win more shorthanded than the possibility of making a straight.

In a full game however the highness of 7 vs 3 is irrelevant, as they will BOTH lose to higher cards, thus the only way to win is making a powerful hand and 32o has the possibility of making a straight whereas 72o does not.

The quality of a hand value changing according to the number of players should not be a foreing concept.

Think about a hand like A6o full vs heads up

Or 33.

[spider]

Pokerstove is overkill, just look at a chart of strength against random hands. 72o is relatively stronger against fewer opponents compared to 32o.

http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm

I think if anyone was sufficiently bored to sort these, he'd find that 32o is the worst hand headsup and 72o is the worst against 9 opponents. Of course, this is all assuming random hands.

[Big_Jim]

Also interesting is that 72o is worse against random hands until there are only 3 or fewer of them to worry about.

[Wake up CALL]

I read this thread with interest to see where it might end up. Below is a link to Gocee Poker that has a chart of 1,000,000 simulated hands showing the win percentage and pot equity of all possible hands from 1 to 9 oponnents.

Relative Hand Rankings

[benkahuna]

TY for the link. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]