Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me for 7-2 offsuit!

This is kinda dumb. Seems like a huge waste of time and potential money.

lol dude, then don't do it. no-one is forcing you.

i`ve folded 7 2 loads of times, but it seems when i fold it the flop comes 7 7 2 or 2 2 7,, when i stay with it nothing ever flops for me,, buck

That's exactly the kind of perceived notion about this hand that I want to test.

[quote=Lana_Faith;616615]I want to see just how often, this "worst hand of poker" can beat the stuffings off anything else on the table.

I'll save you the trouble: About 30% of the time. 75% if dominating.

[quote=Emperor IX;616676]okay maybe I didn't make myself clear, this isn't about finding a statistic for a given set of variables. This is testing those statistics against real world scenarios to see if the two are correlative or not. Capice?

It's not that "these people" don't like the idea, it's that doing this will cost you money. Doing this experiment for a short period of time proves nothing & doing it long enough to achieve valid results will decimate your bankroll & get you the numbers mentioned above.
I am curious what motivated this shot at the general tone & attitude of the membership, as the basic decency & friendly attitude of this forum is what sets it apart from most forums.

I'm sorry Lana, as much as I would love to add to your database...

I just can't play F****NG 7-2o ever! I go out of my way to fold it in a limped BB. Even in play money games!

Since the Experiment is for the purposes of the writer involved and the 'Guinea Pigs' are the willing, then so be it.
On PokerStars be it a Freeroll, Freeplay Tournament, or Freeplay 5/10 Ring game then I don's see the harm in a 'trivial' endeavor. Yet as serious as some players are, I don't think anyone looks at 7-2os unless they are on the BB and are allowed to limp in to see a cheap flop, or getting Blinded-out in a Freeroll MTT and the 'last hand' happens to be a 7-2os.
Whether they want to contribute to this thread is another prerogative of the player themselves.
I am not taking 'any' side on this but for the sake of a future thread that leads people to think that playing 7-2os is ethical..
Well, surely the heated debate begins.
Which also leads to argue the playing of a 7-2os as a considered starting hand is laughable and gives some donkey a great vision of percieved glory..let them belive in the delusion and happily take their money.
And most players on this forum couldn't be bothered to keep a hand history of 7-2os expose'....although a Bad Beat story is where this may apply in reference..
The other reason this may be a perceived insult to the forum is that most people are here for the purpose of 'Improving' their game not 'Donking' it. Since most players are trying to Build a Bankroll not Blow it. Every Chips counts in a Tournament, and every Chip in a $ game IS the Bankroll.

Lastly, I have been the victim of a folded 7-2os in the BB where it was raised up to beynd worth 'protecting' and the flop came down 7-7-2... So I recognize the 'Project's' intrinsic value.
~Good Luck with your Mission Lana--I may contribute, if I care enough to remeber to play them & keep the HH.~

thank you kind sir

I rather doubt if this is the thrust of my project... rather, I wish to prove (or hopefully disprove) the notion that PokerStars, and by proxy, any other site in particular, hands out 'bad beats' as a matter of company policy, or poor programming. The official hypothesis which I'm testing is:

Hypothesis: "So-called 'bad beats' occur congruent with statistical probability, within an acceptable margin of error."

I happily agree!

Which is why I don't suggest doing this with real money. Of course, if we can prove within an acceptable margin of error, that bad beats do not occur outside of statistical norms, then I think this is information which WILL help people improve their game. Conversely, if we find that (on pokerstars at least) there is a sufficiently large gap between expected statistics and reality, then this is also rather important information for our game, don't you agree?

Good luck, sir, and thank you for contributing to the cause!

I think if you, on your own are doing this in strictly free play, and how ever you are maintaing the statistics, as in;

• Hands played to # of times 7-2os (and even suited) show up as HoleCards.
• Position you were in when you got 7-2 then how you reacted to the table. (style of Play types of Players)
• The # of Times it won vs. # of Times it Lost.
• The # of times 7-2 combination hit the board in absence of 7-2 in Hand.

As with any Science Experiment comes the - Hypothesis, Independant Variable, Dependant Variable, Outcome, and Conclusion.
So to consider ALL the variances of any particular 7-2 incident requires a mental exercise that would surely rattle my brain to a tired and sleepless week. In crunching the numbers and putting each 'scenario' in a compartment label.

And the terms of a 'Bad Beat' are relative to the Size of the Bet to the amount in the Pot to the the Hand that gets beaten against the odds.
(ex. A Nut Full House A-A-A-K-K beaten by Quads K-K-K-K) which is more unlucky than a Bad Beat per se.

I think, that if you are a studious type and are working on some sort of Thesis or a Paper on the subjuct, aside from the input from the CC forum.
I am certain there are numerous articles or Blogs out there that can add to the 'research' and help you to achieve some 'mathematics' pertaining to your quest. And more likely that one of the many Poker Book authors have covered this very subject.
I realize that this is meant for a control of that being 'PokerStars' specific.
I completely understand the incessant need to find a 'truth' to the prevailing fact/myth that 7-2 being so terrible.

I look at it in a somewhat similar way being, 2 to 7 having 4 card gap to not getting a straight, yet curiously people will play 5-10 or J-6 or Q-7 and K-8 even A-9... albeit A thru 10 have the higher value.
And pairing Q-7 on a flop of 2-7-Q you will surely lose all day - unless a 2 happens to complete the full house. And better hope that a 7 or another Q doesnt hit the river.
The Kicker is the real 'Kicker' if you know what I mean.
The other equation to any formula would have to be in the matter of

• Ring Game Limit/NL and the stakes (5/10, 10/20 & 100/200)
• Sit & Go
• MTT
• Freerolls

So be it in Play-Chips the variable is in specified sets.
And the difficulty in the 'Element' of FreePlay Chips is that there is no risk factor to the player so more than likely a 7-2 "Bad-Beat" is highly possible vs. Real $ Play. And since when I first started out on the FreePlay Tables in particular the 5/10 Ring Games I have enough experience to know that the Drive-By All-In Element is always the pain in the saddle. Which was the main reason I stopped playing in them, and the insults from morons or kids acting out their rage against their parents on a few of us that wanted a 'friendly' game. If PokerStars allowed people to set up 'Private FreePlay Tables' then I may very well do some FreePlay again, so until that happens.. I will mainly play micro-level MTT's the odd S&G or $0.02/$0.04 Limit Hold'em Ring Games. The rest being Freerolls, and occasionally Freeplay 45 ppl. S&G's for 2000+110 to 10,ooo+325.
So in a word, if I can help I will, otherwise they may be far and few.

I know that Doyle Brunson is 'True Legend' and Dolly made 2 WSOP Bracelets with 10-2 of spades but....10-2?? Hitting Full House both times on the Turn and the River.
How much more of a gap is that than 7-2 ??
And the other thing that I have said in chat boxes while playing is
Any two cards pre-flop can win.
The problem being the Law of Probability and the ratio of flushes to 2 pair winning any pot. (I have to wonder about that myself.)
I have shaken my head in dismay many times over a folded 7-2 and the board has either a 2 or a 7 on there and a Ace High wins the pot simply due to the size of a pre-flop bet.
Or the blinds in a tournament being not a worthy risk to Pot Odds.
And 7-2 having an extremely (-)EV
Yet I see players taking down Pots with K-2, J-2 on a frequent occurrence but most of the times that I have observed they were usually suited and the Player had position or was allowed to 'limp' in the BB.
Best wishes in your Quest..!!
I will check in on this thread from time to time.
~So there's that....at least.~

Here's to the 7-2 Theory!!!
http://www.donkeyfishpoker.com/flash/TheShowdown.swf

~Enjoy!!~

Several points:
1. Why pick 72o? Why not KQs? Would PokerStars rig their deck so 72o would win more/less hands than it is supposed to, whereas better hands would not?
2. Why do this with play money? What if the statistics are only affected by whether or not real money is used and not the hand played?
3. What does seeing a flop with 72o necessarily say about how it plays on Stars? Why not take it to the river? (RiverStars lol)

Lastly:
You will need likely need a few thousand hands played with 72o to "prove" anything about a "gap between expected statistics and reality." Do you intend for this experiment to go on for however many months/years/decades as it will take to actually prove anything at all, or will you analyze your data at whatever the amount ends up being after 2/3/4 weeks and attempt to correlate it with reality (perhaps creating a false sense of achievement)?


Also, I started a thread a while ago where we posted how many times we had AA and how many times it won at SD. Data seemed to be the same (and pretty standard) for everyone, but I don't think that even proved anything (since SD means you may have misplayed the hand or whatnot). I don't think anyone got anything out of it.

That being said, GL with this.

Well, despite your obvious lack of interest or even anything resembling courtesy when it comes to this post, I'll attempt to answer your concerns as if you're considering my response, rather than dismissing it out of hand and making up justifications as you go along.

I don't think anyone would believe that KQs is an 'underdog' hand against 99% (or even against 50% for that matter) of all opponents. This experiment was conceived as a way of testing in some manner the notion that PokerStars hands out 'bad beats' more often than is statistically 'normal'. To do that, we need a starter hand which is the underdog against 99% of all scenarios. 72o fits that criteria. (The only possible exception I can think of is heads up against another 72o - in which case it still isn't a favorite, merely a split.)

First of all, why bring this concern up at all, if this experiment is just so much hot air, as you claim? You can't have it both ways, dude. Either the experiment is fundamentally flawed, or it isn't. Which is it?

Secondly, in answer to your concern, the experiment isn't designed to test a difference between the way play money and real money is handled. That would be the focus of ANOTHER experiment entirely, and frankly one which I'm fairly convinced isn't worth pursuing. What would be the point of handling play money and real money by two separate Random Number Generator algorithms? However, there is a case to suggest that the statistics expected by a hand of real cards might, in fact, be very different from the kind of statistics created by an algorithmic equation.

Actually, you have a valid point there. It doesn't really have much to do with the statistics. There is no reason why we can't fold out as early as we like, as long as we get to see all 5 cards on the board. When compiling the statistics, this information is enough. The 'guinea pig' doesn't actually have to be in the hand to determine this information. My caution to at least play your hand to the flop was simply to ensure that the hand didn't end early pre-flop for some reason, so that we could gather all necessary data from all tagged hands.

I had hoped to circumvent that necessity by asking for help here. Clearly I was mistaken, as all I've received from you, sir, is hostility and negativism.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PokerStars Game #12148697744: Hold'em No Limit (5/10) - 2007/09/19 - 14:11:16 (ET)
Table 'Shane II' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #4 is the button
Seat 2: richymen_15 (290 in chips)
Seat 3: damy81 (3110 in chips)
Seat 4: johanl1972 (970 in chips)
Seat 5: idabi (2520 in chips)
Seat 7: lanafaith (2000 in chips)
Seat 9: Boz37 (900 in chips)
idabi: posts small blind 5
lanafaith: posts big blind 10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to lanafaith [7c 2s]
Boz37: calls 10
richymen_15: calls 10
damy81: calls 10
johanl1972: calls 10
idabi: calls 5
lanafaith: checks
*** FLOP *** [9c Tc Js]
idabi: checks
lanafaith: checks
Boz37: bets 40
TURK GD joins the table at seat #8
richymen_15: calls 40
damy81: calls 40
johanl1972: calls 40
idabi: calls 40
lanafaith: calls 40
*** TURN *** [9c Tc Js] 8♥
idabi: checks
lanafaith: checks
Boz37: bets 40
richymen_15: raises 40 to 80
damy81: raises 50 to 130
johanl1972: calls 130
idabi: raises 50 to 180
lanafaith: raises 1770 to 1950 and is all-in
Boz37: folds
richymen_15: calls 160 and is all-in
damy81: folds
johanl1972: calls 790 and is all-in
idabi: folds
*** RIVER *** [9c Tc Js 8h] A♣
*** SHOW DOWN ***
lanafaith: shows [7c 2s] (a straight, Seven to Jack)
johanl1972: mucks hand
lanafaith collected 1360 from side pot
richymen_15: shows [Th 7s] (a straight, Seven to Jack)
lanafaith collected 685 from main pot
richymen_15 collected 685 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2730 Main pot 1370. Side pot 1360. | Rake 0
Board [9c Tc Js 8h Ac]
Seat 2: richymen_15 showed [Th 7s] and won (685) with a straight, Seven to Jack
Seat 3: damy81 folded on the Turn
Seat 4: johanl1972 (button) mucked [3s Kh]
Seat 5: idabi (small blind) folded on the Turn
Seat 7: lanafaith (big blind) showed [7c 2s] and won (2045) with a straight, Seven to Jack
Seat 9: Boz37 folded on the Turn



PokerStars Game #12149021662: Hold'em No Limit (5/10) - 2007/09/19 - 14:29:51 (ET)
Table 'Schwall' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #8 is the button
Seat 1: smokined1 (3335 in chips)
Seat 2: CORNECHO (890 in chips)
Seat 3: lanafaith (2397 in chips)
Seat 4: ajkowski (10957 in chips)
Seat 5: xxxyonosexxx (11455 in chips)
Seat 6: Le_Chiffere (2420 in chips)
Seat 8: depbutch (4280 in chips)
Seat 9: mattenmir (1750 in chips)
mattenmir: posts small blind 5
smokined1: posts big blind 10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to lanafaith [2h 7s]
CORNECHO: calls 10
lanafaith: calls 10
ajkowski: calls 10
depbutch said, "I stopped trying to figure out their songs after they seemed to be HIGH all the time"
xxxyonosexxx: calls 10
Le_Chiffere: calls 10
depbutch: calls 10
mattenmir: raises 10 to 20
xxxyonosexxx said, "LOL"
lanafaith said, "yeah most of 'em from that time were pretty unintelligable"
smokined1: calls 10
CORNECHO: raises 10 to 30
lanafaith said, "goo goo gachoob"
lanafaith: calls 20
ajkowski: calls 20
xxxyonosexxx: calls 20
Le_Chiffere: calls 20
depbutch: calls 20
mattenmir: raises 10 to 40
smokined1: calls 20
CORNECHO: calls 10
lanafaith: calls 10
ajkowski: calls 10
xxxyonosexxx: calls 10
Le_Chiffere: raises 10 to 50
depbutch: calls 20
mattenmir: raises 150 to 200
smokined1: calls 160
CORNECHO: calls 160
lanafaith said, "jeez people either bet what you want or call"
lanafaith: folds
ajkowski: folds
xxxyonosexxx: folds
xxxyonosexxx said, "getting dizzy"
Le_Chiffere: raises 150 to 350
depbutch: calls 300
lanafaith said, "if you want to be allin just shove allin"
mattenmir: calls 150
smokined1: calls 150
xxxyonosexxx said, "yes, please"
CORNECHO: calls 150
*** FLOP *** [9s 8c 8s]
lanafaith said, "that way we know you have a hand"
mattenmir: checks
smokined1: checks
lanafaith said, "otherwise i have to assume you have Jack crap"
lanafaith said, "...and likely missed the flop"
lanafaith said, "with your Q-3 offsuit or whatever"
CORNECHO: checks
ajkowski said, "lol"
lanafaith said, "you have nothing, and you know it"
Le_Chiffere: bets 220
depbutch: calls 220
mattenmir: raises 220 to 440
smokined1: calls 440
CORNECHO: raises 100 to 540 and is all-in
Le_Chiffere: raises 220 to 760
depbutch: calls 540
mattenmir: raises 640 to 1400 and is all-in
smokined1: calls 960
Le_Chiffere: raises 640 to 2040
depbutch: calls 1280
smokined1: calls 640
*** TURN *** [9s 8c 8s] 6♣
smokined1: bets 30
Le_Chiffere: calls 30 and is all-in
depbutch: calls 30
*** RIVER *** [9s 8c 8s 6c] 7♣
lanafaith said, "now you're just praying for the flush"
smokined1: bets 915 and is all-in
lanafaith said, "shoving allin hoping they fold"
depbutch: calls 915
*** SHOW DOWN ***
smokined1: shows [Ts 5s] (a straight, Six to Ten)
depbutch: shows [Qd Tc] (a straight, Six to Ten)
smokined1 collected 915 from side pot-3
depbutch collected 915 from side pot-3
Le_Chiffere: mucks hand
smokined1 collected 1005 from side pot-2
depbutch collected 1005 from side pot-2
lanafaith said, "ROFL Q-crap offsuit, did i call it or what"
mattenmir: mucks hand
smokined1 collected 1720 from side pot-1
depbutch collected 1720 from side pot-1
CORNECHO: mucks hand
CORNECHO leaves the table
smokined1 collected 2285 from main pot
depbutch collected 2285 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 11850 Main pot 4570. Side pot-1 3440. Side pot-2 2010. Side pot-3 1830. | Rake 0
Board [9s 8c 8s 6c 7c]
Seat 1: smokined1 (big blind) showed [Ts 5s] and won (5925) with a straight, Six to Ten
Seat 2: CORNECHO mucked [As Js]
Seat 3: lanafaith folded before Flop
Seat 4: ajkowski folded before Flop
Seat 5: xxxyonosexxx folded before Flop
Seat 6: Le_Chiffere mucked [4d Ac]
Seat 8: depbutch (button) showed [Qd Tc] and won (5925) with a straight, Six to Ten
Seat 9: mattenmir (small blind) mucked [Kc 8d]



PokerStars Game #12149535744: Hold'em No Limit (5/10) - 2007/09/19 - 14:58:17 (ET)
Table 'Klytia IV' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: bruno2501 (13905 in chips)
Seat 3: lanafaith (1990 in chips)
Seat 5: Bratzmann (5860 in chips)
Seat 6: bias030 (1860 in chips)
Seat 7: blaukeule1 (1815 in chips)
lanafaith: posts small blind 5
Bratzmann: posts big blind 10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to lanafaith [2s 7h]
bias030: folds
blaukeule1: raises 110 to 120
bruno2501: calls 120
lanafaith: calls 115
Bratzmann: calls 110
*** FLOP *** [9s 3s Ks]
lanafaith: checks
Bratzmann said, "wieso hast morgen freerollühschicht ?????"
Bratzmann: checks
blaukeule1: checks
bruno2501: checks
*** TURN *** [9s 3s Ks] [Td]
lanafaith: checks
Bratzmann: checks
blaukeule1: checks
bruno2501: checks
*** RIVER *** [9s 3s Ks Td] K♦
lanafaith: checks
Bratzmann: checks
blaukeule1: checks
bruno2501: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
lanafaith: shows [2s 7h] (a pair of Kings)
Bratzmann: shows [As 6d] (a pair of Kings - Ace kicker)
blaukeule1: shows [8h Ac] (a pair of Kings)
bruno2501: mucks hand
Bratzmann collected 240 from pot
blaukeule1 collected 240 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 480 | Rake 0
Board [9s 3s Ks Td Kd]
Seat 1: bruno2501 (button) mucked [7c Jc]
Seat 3: lanafaith (small blind) showed [2s 7h] and lost with a pair of Kings
Seat 5: Bratzmann (big blind) showed [As 6d] and won (240) with a pair of Kings
Seat 6: bias030 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: blaukeule1 showed [8h Ac] and won (240) with a pair of Kings

First of all, that post was written from a completely objective standpoint. Perhaps my previous post suggested some "hostility," and that is why you see the post I last made as a product of mere negativity towards you, which is not what I intended.
Let me clear some things up:
I am not saying "DO NOT DO THIS ITS STUPID DUDE." I'm saying, let's make sure we take care of certain flaws I see as evident within your procedure. I'm also saying I don't necessarily agree with some of your methodology (you can, however, leave it as is). To be more specific, I am referring to the statistical imperfections (that, in effect, turn this "experiment" into more of a correlative study, but that's another story) that I sense will result from this study, and the lack of control of certain other variables.
With that being said, and please do not take this as a personal attack on you (that was never my intention), but I do not believe this study will produce a valid result. Apologies, but the points I stated earlier still stand (You can play KQs and see if it loses more often that it should - also testing for bad beats occurring more often that not in the same manner you stated, but more plausible. Seeing flops also won't say much about the hand, ie. I don't think the data will show much more than how often you flop pairs/2p/trips/etc with two unpaired disconnectors IMO. Also, when I brought up the large sample size necessary for this experiment, I was not suggesting we should all boycott your experiment because it's a waste of time, but rather letting you know exactly how much time and effort would be necessary from the participants before conclusions are drawn - so the conclusions don't end up being misleading.)
IMO, to truly test what you are trying to test, you would just have to run a bunch of bot hands where they all check down every single hand, and test how many times 72o played out as it should. Clearly, this is completely different from your methodology, but in my opinion it would be much more accurate in giving accurate data.

While the realism I'm exhibiting in response to your suggestion may seem like pessimism, do not be misled; I completely support all efforts to research bad beat theory and all other (mis)conceptions of online poker. My cold responses are an effort to provide some constructive criticism, so that before you start the experiment, you can perhaps refine it so the results will be more accurate.

Also, you should perhaps start a blog or something for the HHs of your 72o adventures, since going through a thread like this to look for them might be too much of a hassle.

V

its not worth playing 7 2 to prove an already know fact that pokerstars is rigged but again even if a hand only has 1% to win it stilll has a chance and it may still get there

i give up. have it your way. mod, please delete this post if you can. thanks.

I sense your frustration and hope you don't let it get to you. You just wanted to have fun with something and got some negative feedback. I looked at your post when you did it and even though I wasn't interested but didn't feel the need to tell you that. Just like when you go to a live poker event, just realize there is someone there is always waiting to give advice good or bad ad nauseum, while I'm thinking go write a book and shut up lol.

honestly i think that this can be a con or a pro....i watched an episode of high stakes poker were they made a bet that if anyone won a hand with 7-2 everyon would have to pay $500 dollars to the winner......at first i thought this was stupid but reall i mean this just loosens up the idiots to take there money... they could risk a lot of there chips to a blouff just to win $500 from each player....then you nail em with a quality hand and take there money.........although in the episode it also worked in the favor of the 7-2 player because if he was not bluffing and someone thought he was he would then win to them being suspicious....mike matusow won two nice hands this way