72s

72s (seven-deuce suited) wins 38.0% of the time against a single random opponent, which places it 153th out of the 169 starting hands — the top 90.5% of the range. At a six-handed table (five opponents) its equity falls to 12.9% and its rank moves to 138; nine-handed (eight opponents) it holds 9.3% for rank 126. A suited hand — the flush adds a few points of raw equity.

Its suited/offsuit twin 72o runs at 34.4% (rank 165), 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 54o at 38.1%, and directly below is 52s at 37.9%, so three hands are packed into a band of 0.2 points.

Played heads-up against each of the other 168 hands, 72s is a favourite against 21 of them and an underdog against 147. Its best matchup is 62o at 67.9% and its worst is 77 at 11.8% — a spread of 56.1 points, which is why calling 72s simply "strong" or "weak" says very little.

72s dominates 8 hands that share one of its ranks, pushing hardest against 62o at 67.9%. It is dominated by 8 hands in return, the worst of them A7s, which leaves 72s with only 26.3%. 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 74 of 78. The strongest hand in that group, AKs, is 29.2 points away, and the weakest, 32s, sits 2.1 points below. Measured against the average equity of all 169 hands, 51%, 72s lands -13 points from the middle of the pack, and 152 hands in the full ranking are still ahead of it.

Adding players costs equity steadily: 38.0% against one opponent, 24.7% against two, 15.1% against four and 9.3% against eight. That last figure is 84% of an even nine-way share (11.1%). The Chen formula scores this hand at 0.5 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 72s reads as 38.0% 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.