This hand makes me think of the data a major Casino put out about the actual results of all Hold'em hands for the first six million games played on their site.
The hands that lost the most money were not the "worst" hands possible. The biggest money loser (not coincidentally) is 32s. It lost more than 32s or 72s. Then also, A2s lost more than 32s.
Most players overvalue garbage cards. It's the kiss of death.
Hands that should do better than other hands (32s should do better than 32o) end up doing markedly worse because people play them and think they "have" something.
23 is the single most costly Hold'em holding in the hands of 90% of the players . . . and it holds that distinction by far. 234 is a big improvement, adding the 7 helps, and adding a suit does too, but anyone who thinks this is a "good" hand is surely going to lose a lot of money with it.
Again, this scenario is about the best possible for the hand (besides a free ride in the blind of course), but the hand is still highly speculative and will be a money loser for non-good players. Contrast this to A347 and even a non-good player will have a profitable hand on the button.
The pursuit of available information, even if it takes a bit of work, is largely what separates winning (and breakeven) players from losing players.
Certainly most players lose, but the combination of the winning players and the smallish losers is in the ballpark of half the players. "Bigtime losers" is a smaller percentage -- especially among players who play more than five sessions in their life. Also, the whole concept of "bigtime losers" is fallacious because while plenty of players lose 100% of what they deposit that 100% is often $100.
Was this article helpful?