"72o is the worst Hold'em hand" - How?

[aujoz]

Repeatedly, I hear people say that 72o is the worst starting hand in Texas Hold'em.

On what basis is this true?

More info:
The Chubukov hand rankings (and most full listings of all starting hands that I've seen, which, admittedly, focus on HU situations) list 32o as the worst.

Obviously, in a HU situation, 72o will beat 32o in the long run. Presumably, however, 32o gains extra equity in multi-way pots that 72o doesn't get (as a result of straights). Where is a listing of hands that puts 72o last?

[Webster]

How do you mean worst. Do you lose the most money? no - because only fools play it.

Actually the worst hands are the T6s and T9o T8o because people will play them and get in trouble. Even 22 is worse then 73o when it comes to total money lost.

[grando]

there is a list of hands that rates each individual hand vs. 9 other random hands

I've seen the list, but don't have it on this computer

72o is at the bottom, followed by 82o I believe, then 83o

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Repeatedly, I hear people say that 72o is the worst starting hand in Texas Hold'em.

On what basis is this true?

More info:
The Chubukov hand rankings (and most full listings of all starting hands that I've seen, which, admittedly, focus on HU situations) list 32o as the worst.

Obviously, in a HU situation, 72o will beat 32o in the long run. Presumably, however, 32o gains extra equity in multi-way pots that 72o doesn't get (as a result of straights). Where is a listing of hands that puts 72o last?

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis is this true, you ask?

7 high is only marginally better than 3 high against any hand that other players are likely to be playing, especially multi-way. They're very likely to have the same degree of "liveness" against overs. But 23 makes more straights, and typically better straights. That's basis.

I haven't seen these other lists you speak of, but I think you're miss-using the Chubokov rankings. the Chubokov rankings measure the all-in PF value of a hand in very specific circumstances, not the relative worth of the hands. Your extrapolation that one is better thant the other because of where it appears on the list may, or may not, be reasonable but I don't think its what the list is saying.

Finally, it doesn't matter. They are both crappy hands. Trying to figure out which one is the crappier really is an intellectual exercise rather than a practical one. The difference is negligible. I don't see anybody interested in conclusively identifying the third worst possible hand, I'm not sure why identifying the absolute worst is any more useful.

[RAHZero]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you mean worst. Do you lose the most money? no - because only fools play it.

Actually the worst hands are the T6s and T9o T8o because people will play them and get in trouble. Even 22 is worse then 73o when it comes to total money lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what? 22 is a HUGE winner for any good player, as is any pocket pair. Not as big a winner in limit as NL, but certainly not a long run losing hand.

[tom10167]

*when played properly

[marvin_1935]

you shouldn't be losing money w/ 22

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you mean worst. Do you lose the most money? no - because only fools play it.

Actually the worst hands are the T6s and T9o T8o because people will play them and get in trouble. Even 22 is worse then 73o when it comes to total money lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what? 22 is a HUGE winner for any good player, as is any pocket pair. Not as big a winner in limit as NL, but certainly not a long run losing hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said total money lost. He didn't say net money lost or net money won. I believe he means total losses without regard to total winnings.

[kcheel]

7/2o is not the worst hand if its against 3/2o. 7/2 is actually about a 65/35 favorite. Up against a high pair like A/A, 2/3o comes out a little better due to straight possibilities.

[Yads]

It is the worst hand unless it is precisely against hands it dominates.