poker Hands

Is this a quiz?

yes

It's what you get dealt more than half the time from a 52-card deck:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probabilities of Poker Hands

0.001539% straight flush
0.024010% 4 of a kind
0.144058% full house
0.196540% flush
0.392465% straight
2.112845% 3 of a kind
4.753902% 2 pairs
42.256903% pair
50.117739% nothing

Sure. The one you're holding when someone has a better hand.

no it is not

The worst hand belongs to the card holder who has his left hand severed by an axe wielding psycho while he is holding a busted straight containing an ace of spades, a two of diamonds, a three of hearts, a four of clubs, six of diamonds, (or a different variety of suits that don't add up to a flush either)

Yes, the worst possible hand (as far as losing the most money) is holding 4 Kings when your opponent has 4 Aces.

Or one could have this hand of cards thrown at you ...


OUCH!

Basically what I said.

Or holding a straight flush when your oponent's has a royal flush. That's even worse than the four kings scenario. You'd never fold as long as there was a dime of credit to your name.

I have never lost money with a 8 high card.

The worst hand in poker is 2-3-4-5-7 in different suits.

That's not the worst hand Joe.

Not much money has ever been lost with a 7 high.

Only according to your rather idiosyncratic definition of "worst." I define "worst" in this context as "the hand with the lowest chance of beating any other hand." According to that definition, 2-3-4-5-7 in different suits is the worst hand in poker.

You have a rather idiosyncratic definition of "idiosyncratic".

We are talking about poker here. The goal of poker is to win money. Winning money is good. Losing money is bad. Losing lots of money is worst.

The hand you are talking about is "inconsequential" in most poker contexts (i.e. it would not even be bet on). The superlative term "worst" is generally used for things that are significantly bad.

Certain hands in poker beat other hands, pursuant to the rules of poker. Thus three of a kind beats a pair, according to the rules. On the other hand, if you drop out while holding three of a kind while I'm the only one left and I'm holding a pair, that doesn't mean that a pair beats three of a kind. It just means that you were unwilling to pay enough to see which hand would prevail in a showdown according to the rules of poker. The fact that you were bluffed into folding, however, has no bearing on the rank ordering of hands.

My point is that you are misusing the term "worst" (which is the superlative form of the word "bad").

If you want to say some hands lose to other hands. You are absolutely correct. If you said that some hands had a "lower value" than other hands that you are completely right.

The whole point of poker (whether you are bluffing or calling or raising with the nuts) is to win money. In this context whats bad is losing money. Clearly, the term "worst" is most appropriate for losing a whole lot of money.

When the loser holds a full house... he is generally going to lose a whole bunch of money (and yes, I have been there).

Getting a low value hand isn't so bad.