83s

83s (eight-three suited) wins 40.7% of the time against a single random opponent, which places it 139th out of the 169 starting hands — the top 82.2% of the range. At a six-handed table (five opponents) its equity falls to 13.6% and its rank moves to 128; nine-handed (eight opponents) it holds 9.6% for rank 121. A suited hand — the flush adds a few points of raw equity.

Its suited/offsuit twin 83o runs at 37.3% (rank 157), a gap of 3.4 points. Sharing a suit is worth exactly those 3.4 points here — nothing about the ranks changes. The hand directly above it in the ranking is 54s at 41.4%, and directly below is 94o at 40.7%, so three hands are packed into a band of 0.7 points.

Played heads-up against each of the other 168 hands, 83s is a favourite against 33 of them and an underdog against 135. Its best matchup is 73o at 70.0% and its worst is 88 at 12.0% — a spread of 58 points, which is why calling 83s simply "strong" or "weak" says very little.

83s dominates 8 hands that share one of its ranks, pushing hardest against 73o at 70.0%. It is dominated by 8 hands in return, the worst of them A8s, which leaves 83s with only 26.8%. 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 68 of 78. The strongest hand in that group, AKs, is 26.5 points away, and the weakest, 32s, sits 4.8 points below. Measured against the average equity of all 169 hands, 51%, 83s lands -10.3 points from the middle of the pack, and 138 hands in the full ranking are still ahead of it.

Adding players costs equity steadily: 40.7% against one opponent, 26.6% against two, 16.0% against four and 9.6% against eight. That last figure is 86% of an even nine-way share (11.1%). The Chen formula scores this hand at 1 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 83s reads as 40.7% 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.