# Help with a bet on poker odds please! **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 8, 2008, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966 "2008-10-08T07:53:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/21 "2008-10-09T12:34:47Z")
The answer to the OP’s question has been given by various people above, but to summarize: 7-2 will beat x-2 (where x is 6, 5, 4, or 3) more often than it loses if both hands are simply played to the end, with no betting, so in that sense, 2-3 is the “worst hand in poker”. But when you take betting and expected value into account, x-2 (where x is 6, 5, 4, or 3) is likely to win more money (or lose less money) in the long run than 7-2 - on this definition, 7-2 is “the worst hand in poker”. So you’re both right, depending on which definition is used. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/22 "2008-10-09T12:55:35Z")
2-7 does not stretch to a straight. 5-4 does. That just adds one more way to win. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/23 "2008-10-09T13:12:57Z")
> [@glee](#): > > Cite? > > My evidence is that I’ve seen AA v KK several times in televised poker tournaments. > The commentators always say “This is a cold deck”, the money goes in and AA wins most of the time (as you’d expect). That’s completely irrelevant- obviously any pocket pair is going to be more profitable than any lower pair heads-up. The question is, how much more profitable. [QUOTE=SB] I wouldn’t butt heads with Sam over poker knowledge. [/QUOTE] Why? [QUOTE=Caldazar] See this link; it is a compilation of average real-world outcomes of various hold’em starting hands over millions of deals. AA winds up being about 39% more profitable than KK in real play. [/QUOTE] Thank you. That’s pretty convincing. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/24 "2008-10-09T15:06:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why? He has a pretty deep understanding - enough knowledge to play professionally. As someone who has studied the game and played professionally for years, I’ve yet to read anything he’s said on the subject that was wrong. I didn’t mean to sound as confrontational as I may have… I’d be happy to explain stuff in more detail if you have any poker questions. ---
**Author:** ![Strider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Strider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strider)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/25 "2008-10-09T18:19:13Z")
I have been super busy the past couple days and haven’t had a chance to come back and check on this. Thanks for the great responses guys. Remember, the question was not if you should play the hand. The question was, which hand has better odds of winning, 7-2 or 2-x (x\<7). Of course the majority of the time you will lose with any of these hands. We were just betting if the adage " 2-7 is the worst hand in poker" is true. I said it was true, my friend said it wasn’t. From what I can tell so far here, 2-7 is still the worst hand in poker. Thanks for the help guys! -n ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/26 "2008-10-09T19:15:10Z")
> [@Strider](#): > > From what I can tell so far here, 2-7 is still the worst hand in poker. It isn’t clear from your post if you got the correct gist. Perhaps you did, but if not: In **heads-up play** against a random hand where both hands will go **all the way to showdown** guaranteed, then **23o is the worst hand to have**. In **10-handed play** against 9 random hands where all hands will go **all the way to showdown** guaranteed, then **27o is the worst hand to have**. Neither of these is a realistic game, but they are the source of the statement in question. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/27 "2008-10-09T20:00:48Z")
I have heard, (and it makes sense) that 7-2 is the worst hand against premium starting hands (A-anything, two face cards or mid to high pairs). Running simulations at his site proves the theory [http://www.pokercalculatoronline.com/](http://www.pokercalculatoronline.com/) 6-2, 5-3, 3-2 etc. have a better chance of making straights so those hands have a ‘better’ chance of winning against a premium hand. But still not a very good chance. In head to head action 7-2 is a better hand against 6-2, because the chance of making a straight is low and , the 7 will out kick the 6. In a 10 person game, the chance of 7-2 playing heads up against 6-2 is highly unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/28 "2008-10-09T20:06:01Z")
> [@50million](#): > > At my regular game we call AK “Anna Kournikova” because it looks good but it never wins. Yes, A-K loses a lot of pots, only because it gets played in a lot of pots. In my home game 7-2 never loses a pot because it never plays in any pots. I do know of some home games that if a player wins with 7-2, that the player wins a pre-determined jackpot prize. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2008, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/29 "2008-10-11T04:08:18Z")
> [@Pasta](#): > > In **heads-up play** against a random hand where both hands will go **all the way to showdown** guaranteed, then **23o is the worst hand to have**. > In **10-handed play** against 9 random hands where all hands will go **all the way to showdown** guaranteed, then **27o is the worst hand to have**. Both statements cannot be true. 7-2 cannot become worse than 3-2 when more random hands are added, if the first statement is true (which it is). 3-2 is better than 7-2 in hold-em poker _given typical play_, which is to say, in the situations 3-2 would normally be played _by a skilled player_. In play with any number of players _checking to the river_, 7-2 has a higher winning percentage than 3-2. Since realistic play involves bluffing, one cannot calculate an exact percentage for real play. However, [here’s some empirical data](http://www.tightpoker.com/hands/ev_position.html) which just goes to show you that there’s a lot of suckers out there. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/30 "2008-10-13T12:09:26Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Both statements cannot be true. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966/31 "2008-10-13T18:37:28Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Both statements cannot be true. They are. In heads up play, 72o has more equity than 32o by having a bigger kicker. In 10-handed play, that equity increase goes away since the 7 kicker won’t be winning any pots, but 32o’s (smaller amount of) straight equity then becomes relevant. I don’t see why this is at odds with – or has anything to do with – _in situ_ statistics. (The 72o claim originated before the wave of online poker data and stems from simple calculations in the all-the-way-to-showdown 10-handed scenario.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-a-bet-on-poker-odds-please/466966.md?page=1)