Need backing up (or shouting down) please folks!

While reading through some posts i came across the "Anna Kournikova: Looks great, but never wins..." line,

As far as i know the cards know as "Anna Kournikova" are actually "KQ", a lot of folk seem to think its AK, Big slick does look great but actually wins quite often. "KQ" on the other hand still looks good but is dominated by so many other hands the saying is more true for these two cards.

Anyone back me up?

Interesting and funny analogy but in a way makes sense

PokerPlayer magazine referred to "Anna Kournikova" as KQ - the description fits the hand, but it doesn't make sense! Her initials are A K not K Q!

That is very interesting. I was watching WPT one nite and they said that one of the players holding KQ Had the Anna. I thought he just made a mistake. So I guess your getting alot of backing.

That's a tough one since the human Anna has only been around so long. You can't say "so & so" started calling it that in the 70's. She wasn't born yet. But the initials make sense with AK.

On the "never wins" part: I lean toward agreeing because even a small pocket pair is a slight favorite pre-flop VS AK. Also, my personal experience shows I hit top pair less than 25% of the time and the other 75% of the time I have to bail from my raised pot at the turn when I only have 6 outs or less & bad pot odds.

Sure ive seen Anna play tennis but never really noticed the score

IanT

Apparently it is KQ but when I first heard it, AK was mentioned. AK makes more sense from the initals pov

I am not 100% sure either way ;]