64s

64s (six-four suited) wins 41.4% of the time against a single random opponent, which places it 136th out of the 169 starting hands — the top 80.5% of the range. At a six-handed table (five opponents) its equity falls to 15.8% and its rank moves to 99; nine-handed (eight opponents) it holds 11.7% for rank 84. A suited hand — the flush adds a few points of raw equity.

Its suited/offsuit twin 64o runs at 37.9% (rank 155), a gap of 3.5 points. Sharing a suit is worth exactly those 3.5 points here — nothing about the ranks changes. The hand directly above it in the ranking is T2o at 41.7%, and directly below is 85o at 41.4%, so three hands are packed into a band of 0.3 points.

Played heads-up against each of the other 168 hands, 64s is a favourite against 18 of them and an underdog against 150. Its best matchup is 42o at 65.8% and its worst is 66 at 17.0% — a spread of 48.8 points, which is why calling 64s simply "strong" or "weak" says very little. 2 opponents land inside one point of a coinflip, the closest being 72o at 50.0%.

64s dominates 6 hands that share one of its ranks, pushing hardest against 42o at 65.8%. It is dominated by 8 hands in return, the worst of them A6s, which leaves 64s with only 30.7%. 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 66 of 78. The strongest hand in that group, AKs, is 25.8 points away, and the weakest, 32s, sits 5.5 points below. Measured against the average equity of all 169 hands, 51%, 64s lands -9.6 points from the middle of the pack, and 135 hands in the full ranking are still ahead of it.

Adding players costs equity steadily: 41.4% against one opponent, 28.7% against two, 18.2% against four and 11.7% against eight. That last figure is 105% of an even nine-way share (11.1%). The Chen formula scores this hand at 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 64s reads as 41.4% 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.