Talk:Q7

Are we really putting all the "named" hands in? I don't think we should - and if we do the article should have the name of the hand. SheridanCat 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, good question. I can see arguments for and against.  I had tended to put hands in more of a strategic article, but I suppose this is analogous to AA.  I'd like to see other opinions before I develop a strong one of my own. - PhilipR 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Average hand?
.. of all the hands in no limit holdem, it is considered the "average" hand. Average in what sense? Does Q7 lead to the same EV as on average a random hand? How would that be decided? JocK 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Through computer simulation -- hence the name, "Computer Hand" -- I gather it was found that Q7 performs exactly average.  Not sure if that's heads-up or multiway, and it almost certainly involves the assumption of no folds.   However, unless you play exclusively heads up, it bears pointing out that playing merely average hands or better in a multiway game is a sure road to ruin.   Cheers, PhilipR 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... that's what i thought as well. So I tried some simulations in PokerStove: Q7o against a random hand (pot equity 51.8%), against two random hands (pot equity 32.8 %), etc. The values for an average hand (pot equities 50.0% and 33.3%, respectively), don't get reproduced. Increasing the number of players doesn't help. Hence my question... Cheers. JocK 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)