Yes, you're right. Suckout and bad beat are very close.
Actually, we considered including bad beat as a synonym for suckout in the original answer, but decided against. We thought there was at least a nuance of difference between the two. We suspected that many bad beats are suckouts, but certain suckouts might not be bad beats.
But after receiving your question, we revisited the semantics of the issue -- and changed our minds -- or, rather, had our minds changed.
As explained in the 3/22 QoD, any card that allows the underdog hand to beat the favorite hand is a suckout. In our example in the previous QoD, ace-king beat king-king with an ace draw on the river. Originally, again, we didn't think that too many poker players would consider that a bad beat.
Instead, we believed that the term "bad beat" refers to a poker situation whereby a strong hand is beaten by an even stronger hand.
For example, when a full house is beaten by a 4-of-a-kind, or a 4-of-a-kind is beaten by a straight flush, or a straight flush is beaten by a higher straight -- those are classic bad beats.
However, we consulted with some poker pros and they made us realize that "bad beat" is a subjective term that's relative to the situation. For example, Blair Rodman, co-author of our book Kill Phil, responded this way:
"Picture yourself as Elky's opponent in that hand. You have all your money in pre-flop and are a 3-1 favorite to win a big pot. Elky snags an ace. I bet you'd feel like it was a bad beat.
"That exact thing happened to me deep in the WSOP main event the year Raymer won it. If I'd have won the hand, I'd have had a big stack and could have gone on to who knows what. Bad beat!"
Blair did, however, point out one distinction between bad beat and suckout:
"In my mind, suckouts happen after the flop or deep in a hand in a stud-type game. I wouldn't call the Elky hand a suckout if all they were all in pre-flop. If his opponent had moved in post-flop and Elky called, drawing dead to an ace, that's a suckout (and a 'brutal beat' -- note the distinction between bad and brutal)."
Blair provided a couple more examples that we thought explained the subjectivity of bad beats.
"Now, what if my opponent in the main event had had a small stack and beat me, not really damaging me much? For me, it wouldn't have been a bad beat (or a suckout, since we were all in pre-flop). You can take beats, even when you're a huge favorite, in hands that aren't too important and not really consider it a bad beat. You'd hardly give it a thought. This is the crux of your answer. Bad beats happen in bad spots for the player who gets beat, like big pots or crucial times in a tournament.
"Let's say we're on the bubble in a tournament, I have a small stack and I'm trying to hang on to make the money. I take a stand with AQ and get called by a big stack with A5; he snags a 5 and ko's me. Even though it was a small pot relative to the average pot, I was about a 3-1 favorite to win and make the money, so it would be a bad beat for me.
"Let's say you're in a cash game, push in all your money (and all your bankroll) in a huge pot as a 3-2 favorite and lose, sending you to the rail. Bad beat. But what if you're a billionaire and lose a pot the same way? Not a bad beat. In fact, it would be hard for the billionaire to consider anything in a small poker game, relative to his wealth, a bad beat.
"Many years ago I was killing time in a small game. I flopped 4 aces! I was in against a lady who was obviously a novice. She caught two perfect cards to make a royal flush. She didn't even know what she had! She just called my bet on the end. She didn't raise with a royal! Was this a bad beat for me? NO! It was a quirky distribution of cards to be sure, but it did nothing but give me a good laugh. If it had been a big game relative to my situation, it would have been an unreal beat (distinction between unreal land brutal), b
