An opponent hits his card on the river and we post on the forum: “Oh crap, I got another bad beat!” Was it really a bad beat? To answer this question, we need to know what a bad beat is. Searching the specialized literature, we find some generic concepts:
Having a hand that is a heavy favorite, which is defeated as the result of a stroke of luck, especially when the person who hit the card was playing incorrectly by entering the pot first. (Sklansky, David. Theory of Poker, pg. 277)
A hand that loses to an opponent when the opponent hits a winning card very fortunately, especially when the opponent should not have played that hand. (Hilger, Matthew. Internet Texas Hold'em – Winning Strategies from an Internet Pro, pg. 230)
A natural definition of a bad beat means that a player should not be playing in that hand, and yet hits a card that beats the player who would likely win. (Jones, Lee. Winning Low Limit Hold'em, pg. 166)
As is common, there is no formal definition for bad beat. All authors speak of a “favorite hand”, but this is not enough for a definition.
In this sense, we will propose in this article, based on mathematical studies and experience, a formal definition for bad beats:
Formal characterization of Bad Beat
By definition bad beat occurs when the winner had the following chances of winning after all players went in all in:
- Preflop: less than 30% chance of winning;
- Flop: 5 outs or less;
- Turn: 7 outs or less.
Note: although relevant, this definition does not take into account whether the player who gave the bad beat should have been in the hand or not (as the authors say), since it is something of subjective evaluation. The definition is limited to probabilistic aspects, so that a player can play perfectly and still give a bad beat (by pot odds, for example).
Explaining the definition a little better. A bad beat occurs when a player who is losing (underdog), goes all in and is called or calls an all in, and even though the opponent(s) are big favorites, the underdog hits the card(s) that save him and he wins the hand.
Following this definition we have bad beat classics:
- Preflop: AA X KK; AK X AQ; AA X A9; 22 X 22 and a player makes a flush (this is the worst possible bad beat!)
- Flop: AA X KQ on a K23 flop, all in and turn or river K or Q
- Turn: AA X KQ on a turn K237, all in and river r K or Q
The possible combinations are very large and we could list a huge number of bad beats. But it is more illustrative to show what no it's bad beat.
- PF: AKs X 72nd (72nd has 30.9%), not a bad beat
- Flop: when the player behind has two overcards. Ex.: JJ X AK, flop 459, all in on the flop (AK has 6 outs), it is not a bad beat.
- Flop or turn: when the player behind has a flush draw, open-end straight draw (two ends) or double insight straight draw (two drills), it is not a bad beat
- Flop or Turn: when I have an over card and a drill. Ex.: AA X KQ on a KT9 flop (9 outs), it is not a bad beat.
So, when you are in doubt whether it was a bad beat or not, follow the mathematical definition given here and there is no mistake! It is the end of the controversy about bad beats!
Finally, a testimonial from one of the greatest players of all time about bad beats!
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXdva_-MUKs
English 
Português do Brasil 
Español 
Excellent Petrillo.
I often notice that some players call their feats bead beats to explain them.
I think one of the most annoying bad beats would be this one:
Preflop equity 86% x 14%.
AcAd x Qc9h Pre Flop.
7h5hAs Flop / 4h / Th
This drives me crazy!
After the Flop 95% x 5% / Turn 81% x 19%. I think the player who is on the flush draw smiles here and our friend from AAAT7 must be on top of his game. Boy, depending on the event, when this happens to me, honestly, I feel like breaking my LCD LOL. But I think, I've already lost about $$$ here and I'm still at a loss. ~
To give you an idea, it wasn't a bad beat, it would be if I hit the K. I was playing a satellite at RiverPoker for a spot in a Main Event worth BI 88 euros. With only 3 players left, I had 5.3k against player A with 4.2k.
and another running on the outside with 1.2k. I get a KK hand, player A raises me 1.2k, I thought now is my time, if I take this guy down I'll be really deep and go to the MAIN EVENT, I would know that the biggest chance was to lose to AA, I SHOVE. I thought of N hands for the guy AJ/AQ/AT/AK and lastly an AA.
Well when he shows AA, wow it was hard to see that, now all I had left was the two KK and to do str what a miracle.
Thanks Petrillo. As always, Arrebnado and let's face the bead beats, hopefully more for the villain!
Thanks for the compliments Alex!
Bad beats are part of poker. Now, there are some that are complicated. Do you know what the biggest bad beat is?
This is when we have 22, we go all in pf and a villain calls with 22. And either of us wins the hand with a flush!! The probability of this happening is 2.08%!
Note: Don't know how to calculate this and other poker things? Visit //poker.pro.br/pokerstove-guia-pratico/
Congratulations on the article, I only find two things wrong:
1st Saying that “AKs X 72o” because they have 0.5% more than it should be to be a bad beat is too rigid for what is intended with poker.
2nd I don't understand why a bad beat on the turn and flop needs to be % lower than pre-flop (e.g.: 8 outs for the river is at most 20%). Basically, because a probability of 25% must be a bad beat pre-flop and, on the turn, it is no longer a bad beat.
A bad beat is part of poker, the important thing is whether the player plays the game well or badly... subjective I know, but it is what in the long term will prove whether or not he is a good player.
João, what I'm arguing for in the article is a formal definition for bad beat. And as a definition, the two points you mentioned aren't exactly wrong.
I defined that whenever we have pf live cards and win, regardless of the configuration, it is not a bad beat. The worst pf live card situation is AKs x 72o. So this is the cutoff point. Whatever has a worse probability is a bad beat. Whatever has a better probability is not.
In the case of the turn, the cutoff point is having at least 8 outs that are equivalent to an OESD. I argue that if the guy has at least an OESD (or equivalent) and wins, it is not a bad beat, since he had a strong draw. But this is also the cutoff point, determined by definition.
We can discuss whether the ideal is 10 outs or 5 outs. What I have defined is 8 outs, because an OESD is a strong draw.
The main point is that we must define the cutoff points, that is, it is not a bad beat but it is almost:
* pf: AKs X 72o
* flop: 6 outs (two overcards like KQ x 99 on a 374 flop)
* turn: 8 outs (have an OESD or equivalent)
If you have a better definition than the one I proposed, for value, write to me (fabiano at petrillo.com), and I will immediately change my position.
For now, I believe the definition is very adequate and coherent. And since it is a well-founded definition, it cannot possibly be “wrong.”
Thanks for the comment!
Yes, correct… the thing is that 8 outs on the turn is only worth it with a small bet:
There are 1000 in the pot, the villain goes all-in 900 (pot 1900)… it's not worth going with just an OESD (it depends on other issues, but thinking about cash).
Even excluding the game situation, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to have different % to define bad beats on the different streets. As I said, having 20% and hitting on the river is as much luck as having 20% pre-flop and hitting. Why should one be a bad beat and the other not?
fuck I just took one I AQ VILLAIN AJ (both without nipes) flop 7,4,10 he bets I all in turn J river 2 it's hurting until now I lost $10 in fullriged cash
It really was a bad beat, but it happens 12% of the time. Relax.
I dropped out of a tournament here in my city:
I was the big blind and had KK in my hand, but I couldn't raise yet, so everyone folded, and then the dealer went all in, the small blind folded and I called. At showdown I opened KK and he went 4 5 off. The flop came 6 J 8, turn 2 and river 7. If I'm not mistaken, in the all in pre flop it was 83% for me against 17% for him. But unfortunately, the unbelievable happened!
Cássio, it was a bad beat, but there's nothing unbelievable about it.
Always count the probability at the time of the all-in decision, which was pf. And in this case the odds were:
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt
16,654,239 games 35,734 secs 466,061 games/sec
Board:
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 81.280% 81.07% 00.22% 13501382 37207.50 { KK }
Hand 1: 18.720% 18.50% 00.22% 3080992 37207.50 { 54o }
In other words, his hand is far from invincible… and therefore there is nothing unbelievable about his defeat.
Today I took two terrible Bad Beats that wiped me out, I lost everything I had won that night and what I had recovered with a lot of sweat after the first bad beat... I even thought that PokerStar was testing my patience lol, because it all happened so quickly.
First it came out as a monster hand AA and I was immediately aggressive, I made a set on the flop and the villain made a set of 4 on the turn and a four on the river I lost everything!!!!!!!!!!
On Monday I went out with KK, I was very aggressive, the villain called and I made a fullen K and 2 on the flop. Then I bet everything!!!!! The villain had 88, made a three-of-a-kind on the tour and a four-of-a-kind on the river. LOL After that I took a deep breath and went to sleep, but I still won't trade poker for chess.
The worst thing is that I'm always conservative and I lost both to newbies at the table who didn't know my style yet. The others who were cleaning would never call my bluff!!!!!!
That's what poker is all about. You have to think long term, and not get caught up in unpleasant sessions.