32s

32s (three-deuce suited) wins 35.9% of the time against a single random opponent, which places it 163th out of the 169 starting hands — the top 96.4% of the range. At a six-handed table (five opponents) its equity falls to 12.8% and its rank moves to 141; nine-handed (eight opponents) it holds 10.0% for rank 116. A suited connector — straight and flush draws in the same holding.

Its suited/offsuit twin 32o runs at 32.3% (rank 169), a gap of 3.6 points. Sharing a suit is worth exactly those 3.6 points here — nothing about the ranks changes. The hand directly above it in the ranking is 63o at 36.1%, and directly below is 43o at 35.2%, so three hands are packed into a band of 0.9 points.

Played heads-up against each of the other 168 hands, 32s is a favourite against 1 of them and an underdog against 167. Its best matchup is 32o at 52.5% and its worst is 33 at 15.9% — a spread of 36.6 points, which is why calling 32s simply "strong" or "weak" says very little. 1 opponents land inside one point of a coinflip, the closest being 42o at 49.5%.

It is dominated by 8 hands in return, the worst of them A3s, which leaves 32s with only 27.4%. A single kicker can move the number by tens of points, and the full table below lists every one of those opponents.

Within the 78 suited hands it comes 78 of 78. The strongest hand in that group, AKs, is 31.3 points away, and the weakest, 32s, sits 0 points below. Measured against the average equity of all 169 hands, 51%, 32s lands -15.1 points from the middle of the pack, and 162 hands in the full ranking are still ahead of it.

Adding players costs equity steadily: 35.9% against one opponent, 23.9% against two, 15.1% against four and 10.0% against eight. That last figure is 90% of an even nine-way share (11.1%). The Chen formula scores this hand at 4.5 points, and it arrives 0.3% of the time (4 of 1,326 combinations).

One caveat worth repeating: every number on this page assumes the opponent holds a completely random hand and that the pot goes to showdown. Real opponents hold ranges, and a range that has already put money in is stronger than random — which is exactly why 32s reads as 35.9% here but plays worse than that against a raise. Use the 168 rows in the table below to see which specific holdings are the problem, rather than treating the headline figure as a verdict on the hand.