22 or 77 - Any Difference?

[goolick]

It seems to me that if you look down and see 22 preflop, it's not much different than seeing 66/77. The reason is that if you don't catch a set (In which case you'll most likely win either way), you probably don't have an over pair. In the unlikely case that you end up with a flush, 7 high isn't much more powerful than 2 high.

Can anyone give me any reason to raise preflop w/ 77 but not w/ 22?

[ensign_lee]

To put it simply, no.

[DoGGz]

I'd say in tornies there are. Plenty of times the flop comes 436 or 468 and 77 is looking much better then 22.

You are looking for a set either way, but 77 has much greater skill requirement to play

[a500lbgorilla]

I'd say in tornies there are. Plenty of times the flop comes 436 or 468 and 77 is looking much better then 22.

You are looking for a set either way, but 77 has much greater skill requirement to play

It's not exactly plenty of times.

I wouldn't value 77 that much over 22.

-'rilla

[SmackinYaUp]

77 is a luckier hand and will hit sets more often, so raise it preflop.

[goolick]

77 is a luckier hand and will hit sets more often, so raise it preflop.

Are you sure?

[a500lbgorilla]

77 is a luckier hand and will hit sets more often, so raise it preflop.

Are you sure?

No.. he's not.

-'rilla

[Sykedupp]

77 is a luckier hand and will hit sets more often, so raise it preflop.

Luck is for people without skill



is to as .............................

*walks away, thinking of a good comparison*


And yes, I play them about the same.... im more comfortable going for a blind steal with 77 then with 22 though.


-Chris

[a500lbgorilla]

77 is a luckier hand and will hit sets more often, so raise it preflop.

Luck is for people without skill



is to as .............................

*walks away, thinking of a good comparison*

-Chris

As is to

-'rilla

[Sykedupp]

Well done, good sir.

-Chris

[k8s]

I like 77 a lot more than 22. When the flop is 36Q with 77, you're not in a bad position. It could even come all unders or something like 568. With 22, you always have a bad hand unless you set.

Oh, and hello FTR! I've lurked for a while, and finally decided to post - you have really helped my game.

[Hubris1]

In later levels in a tourney or SNG there is a world of difference between 77 and 22. In a ring game, not much of a difference and I will play them the same.

[thestrokes]

goolick we both know that 7/2 off suitis a much better hand than 22 or 77 anyway. Dump those hands and wiat for a monster like 7/2 off suit

[SmackinYaUp]

I like 77 a lot more than 22. When the flop is 36Q with 77, you're not in a bad position. It could even come all unders or something like 568. With 22, you always have a bad hand unless you set.

Oh, and hello FTR! I've lurked for a while, and finally decided to post - you have really helped my game.

Hey! Welcome.

Honestly, I would not reccommend playing either hand for anything other than sets (4 of a kinds do the trick as well ). With a flop like 36Q, its hard to tell where you stand holding 77 - top pair no kicker has you beat - and even that is not a hand that I would count on for much.

Unless, unlike myself, you have great post flop skills.

[Eric]

I agree that on a 10 player table they are very similar. However, the difference between them is meaningful on short-handed tables.

If there are only 3 or 4 players on a table then 77 is an extremely powerful hand, much more so than 22.

[TylerK]

77 is a luckier hand and will hit sets more often, so raise it preflop.

Oh hell yeah.

Also, online pocket 7's tend to spike another 7 on the river. I don't know why...it must be something built into the software.

[dsaxton]

7-7 is obviously a lot better than 2-2. The assumption in this thread seems to be that you need an overpair or set with a pocket pair in order to be holding a winning hand. The fact is that someone actually needs to pair one of the overcards on the board in order to outdraw you (in general), and this often doesn't happen. Basically, it's harder for a player to outdraw 7-7 than to outdraw 2-2.

[Borax]

also 77 could make a little extra money against 66 55 44 33 and 22

[thestrokes]

7-7 is obviously a lot better than 2-2. The assumption in this thread seems to be that you need an overpair or set with a pocket pair in order to be holding a winning hand. The fact is that someone actually needs to pair one of the overcards on the board in order to outdraw you (in general), and this often doesn't happen. Basically, it's harder for a player to outdraw 7-7 than to outdraw 2-2.

It is harder, but not by much. The only playable hand that will have a harder time outdrawing you is Axs because it might only have 1 overcard. A smaller pocket pair will be looking for a set like you, so whoever wins that hand will depend on who sets or who is the aggressor with their small pair. Both of those types of hands will most likely fold the flop if you are the aggressor anyway, whether you have 2-2 or 7-7. All other playable hands will most likely have you dominated or have overcards on you.

I dont think the difference is enough to play them very differently.

[OntarioQuizr]

At this point, I should be asking:

What about 88? 99? TT? JJ? Should they be played any differently than 77 or 22?

[a500lbgorilla]

22-66 are small pocket pairs and should be played generally the same. Limp to set, not much value otherwise.

77-TT/JJ are classically the middle pocket pairs. They have some value unimproved, great HU hands but can also be reduced to limp/set hands in multiway pots.

QQ-AA are the high pocket pairs.

-'rilla

[mimmons775]

i value 77 more than 22 because theres a chance(not a good one) that there will be all under cards with 77 and also there has been many times when ive had hands like 22 and 55 where the board makes two pair higher than my pair and i all of a sudden have 2 high

[Sed]

i value 77 more than 22 because theres a chance(not a good one) that there will be all under cards with 77

Isn't there something like a 99.5% chance of at least one over to 77 hitting by the river... well you did say not a good one In comparison to 100% with 22 I guess it is better....

- sed

[mimmons775]

haha yeah i was just talking about the flop tho, by the river there will almost always be a overcard but that overcard has to hit their hole card as well.

[FlyingSaucy]

Pocket pairs get exponentially better as you go up in rank. So the difference in value between 22 vs 33 is extremely small compared to the difference in value between AA and KK.

I'd say 77 is obviously better, you have a better chance at a straight, and in some rare circumstances have no overs on the board.

If I had to put a personal value on pocket pairs ranging from 1-100, I'd say this (and this is just purely guess work of course but I'm sure there is a more accurate statistical model of the approximate power of one PP vs other hands):

22 - 1
33 - 2
44 - 3
55 - 5
66 - 8
77 - 12
88 - 18
99 - 27
TT - 39
JJ - 52
QQ - 66
KK - 82
AA - 100

[FlyingSaucy]

Pocket pairs get exponentially better as you go up in rank. So the difference in value between 22 vs 33 is extremely small compared to the difference in value between AA and KK.

I'd say 77 is obviously better, you have a better chance at a straight, and in some rare circumstances have no overs on the board.

If I had to put a personal value on pocket pairs ranging from 1-100, I'd say this (and this is just purely guess work of course but I'm sure there is a more accurate statistical model of the approximate power of one PP vs other hands):

22 - 1
33 - 2
44 - 3
55 - 5
66 - 8
77 - 12
88 - 18
99 - 27
TT - 39
JJ - 52
QQ - 66
KK - 82
AA - 100

Wait a sec. Do I have this backwards?

Maybe the difference between AA and KK isn't that huge, and it's more bell curved rather than exponential. What are your thoughts?

[ensign_lee]

You gotta jack up the 44 and the 99 and the QQ. Those are my moneymaker PP's, especially the 44.

But in all seriousness, I do think it works more like a bell than like an exponential function.

[JeffreyGB]

FYI, in a 200,000,000 hand simulation heads up, 22 is the only pocket pair that failed to win at least 50% of the time. 77 actually won it 65% of the time. 15% is a pretty decent difference to me.

The reason behind that difference is as people have mentioned above. Just confirming that it really is there.
- Jeffrey

[a500lbgorilla]

FYI, in a 200,000,000 hand simulation heads up, 22 is the only pocket pair that failed to win at least 50% of the time. 77 actually won it 65% of the time. 15% is a pretty decent difference to me.

The reason behind that difference is as people have mentioned above. Just confirming that it really is there.
- Jeffrey

Hand simulators are rigged.

-'rilla

[bspahn]

any pp beats even a hand like AKo, including 22.

however against AKs it's a true coin flip:

2s 2c 849322 49.60 852207 49.77 10775 0.63 0.499
Ah Kh 852207 49.77 849322 49.60 10775 0.63 0.501

[michael1123]

Pocket pairs get exponentially better as you go up in rank. So the difference in value between 22 vs 33 is extremely small compared to the difference in value between AA and KK.

I'd say 77 is obviously better, you have a better chance at a straight, and in some rare circumstances have no overs on the board.

If I had to put a personal value on pocket pairs ranging from 1-100, I'd say this (and this is just purely guess work of course but I'm sure there is a more accurate statistical model of the approximate power of one PP vs other hands):

22 - 1
33 - 2
44 - 3
55 - 5
66 - 8
77 - 12
88 - 18
99 - 27
TT - 39
JJ - 52
QQ - 66
KK - 82
AA - 100

Wait a sec. Do I have this backwards?

Maybe the difference between AA and KK isn't that huge, and it's more bell curved rather than exponential. What are your thoughts?

I think you have it completely correct, and was thinking the same thing while reading this thread (especially when considering 'Rilla's rankings).

The small ones are fun little implied odds hands, typically just for hoping to hit sets or desperation all ins when short stacked, unless you're extremely good post flop and are heads up, and can read that the guy is on a flush draw so your 33 is good, or whatever. 88 and 99 are pretty decent hands, but they require post flop / hand reading ability to play on a flop without a set and with an over or two (or even without, but hey, what hand doesn't).

TT is when it starts to be a decent all in hand that's not entirely out of desperation. Not too hard to play post flop either, but many times this should include just folding it.

JJ is a very good hand that could reasonably dominate hands that call your all in or raise, especially against weak players that overvalue hands like AJ. But if they're calling a monster all in preflop, its probably a coinflip at best situation, so its really not even close to being a real monster at a full table.

QQ is a very very good hand that will dominate about half of hands that'll often call all ins or reraises (AQ, JJ, TT), only is dominated by two hands (AA, KK), and is a coinflip with the 3rd common big pot hand that it doesn't dominate (AK). Its still certainly vulnerable, though, with the possibility of one of two overcards hitting the flop and beating the QQ.

KK is a pure monster. It dominates every hand but one, and really badly if they don't have an A (which typically gives them about a 30% chance to win - not quite as invulnerable as people think).

AA is the god of all hands preflop. Nothing comes close, and it has the beauty of putting many of the biggest hands (particularly AK and AQ) in the worst possible shape of all.