KQs vs QJs

When KQs and QJs get all in before the flop, KQs wins 71.0% of the time and QJs takes 29.0%. Broken down, KQs wins outright 69.8%, chops 2.4% and loses 27.8% — a margin of 42 points. Domination — a shared rank turns this into a kicker fight, and kicker fights are lopsided.

The same matchup shifts depending on how the suits overlap. With no shared suit the number is 71.0% (for example Ks Qs against Qh Jh); with no shared suit it is 71.0% (Ks Qs against Qh Jh). That is a spread of 0 points across the 12 distinct card combinations, and it comes almost entirely from whether the two hands are fighting over the same flush.

Add a third player holding a random hand and the split becomes KQs 45.9%, QJs 25.5%, random 28.7%. KQs gives up 25.1 points and QJs gives up 3.5, so the favourite loses more than the underdog does. Extra players always eat into the leader's share faster than into anyone else's.

Taken on their own, KQs is worth 63.4% against a random hand (rank 16 of 169) and QJs is worth 60.0% (rank 28). The gap between them in the ranking is only 3.4 points, yet head to head the gap is 42 points — a reminder that a ranking table and a direct matchup are two different questions.

Framed as a run of one hundred identical all-ins, KQs scoops roughly 70 pots, splits about 2, and loses the remaining 28. Against eight random opponents rather than this one specific hand, KQs would be down to 20.4% and QJs to 18.6%, so the shape of this particular confrontation matters far more than either hand's standing in the overall ranking.

From QJs's side, 29.0% is the break-even point for calling an all-in at 2.45:1 pot odds. Put another way, the call is profitable as long as the amount you have to put in is less than 29.0% of the pot you are playing for. KQs holds the other 71.0% of that same pot.

Two caveats keep this figure honest. First, it is showdown equity across all 12 card combinations with five board cards still to come — there is no fold equity in it, so the value of shoving in practice is usually higher than the raw percentage suggests. Second, it assumes QJs really does hold exactly QJs; against the wider range a player would actually get all in with, KQs's 71.0% moves. Use the individual pages for KQs and QJs to see how each of them fares against all 168 other holdings before treating this single pairing as the whole picture.