I saw an Upswing video on how to play multiway. One of the things it said was starting hand selection should value small pps and Axs more and suited connectors and marginal high card hands less. Is this based on solver work assuming players in the pot with fairly wide ranges. It seems like you could do those sorts of simulations. Actually, in real low and low-mid stakes games, pp and Axs might be even more valuable than solvers would indicate. The reason being fish will make random 2-pairs with a wide range and have a hard time folding them. They will also play junky suited cards and not be able to fold the non-nut flush.

The logic is that we get paid by weaker holdings, we outkick weaker Ax and get paid on multiple streets with sets because we have a disguised range

Set mining in 3bp multiway is where things get risky because we're drawing dead to bigger sets alot

As far as suited connectors go you generally want to have hands multi-way that can draw to the nuts/effective nuts. Board coverage

This is something I've covered before in the Daily Dose of GTO:



Answer:

Let me share some recent solver data on multiway dynamics (2.5x RFI, NL500 rake structure).

BB EV Delta (BU Flat)

When CO opens and BTN flats (versus CO opens and folds through), here's how BB's EV changes:



Key findings:

• Only pocket pairs gain EV multiway
• Everything else loses EV
• AK shows the biggest EV decline

Note: This measures overcall EV, though many hands aren't actually overcalling (AA squeezes, 72o folds)

BB EV Delta (SB Flat)

How does relative position change things? Here's what happens when SB is the cold-caller instead of BTN:



Changes:

• Same pattern: only pocket pairs gain EV
• Overall EV impact is less severe
• Many hands stay the same EV

Important Note:

These charts show EV differences between multiway and heads-up, not absolute EV. A hand showing "less negative" EV multiway might still be unprofitable - it's just losing less than heads-up.

Theory vs Reality at Low/Mid Stakes:

While GTO suggests Ax suited loses value multiway, there's good reason they overperform in practice at lower stakes:

• Recreational players tend to overplay non-nut flushes
• Creates better implied odds for flush-over-flush than GTO assumes
• Similarly, pocket pairs likely exceed GTO expectations due to set-mining value against opponents who struggle to fold worse pairs

This lines up with the Upswing advice to favor pocket pairs and Ace-x suited multiway, and explains why these hands might perform even better in practice than pure theory suggests.

Your example is based on a 2.5x RFI, NL500 rake structure.

However, the average 1-2/1-3 table is closer to 4-5x RFI. Are pocket pairs still gaining EV when the pots are more bloated?

Let's examine 5x opens in live poker. Here's what solvers tell us, but fair warning - the results might surprise you.

First, let's look at a live solution with BTN opening 5x (including 10% rake, 2bb cap):
[10% Rake, 2bb Cap, 5x RFI]


The solver's verdict? BB literally never calls. Why? The 5x open size is effectively a 160% pot overbet, and with high rake, the solver shifts entirely to a 3-bet or fold strategy.

What if we remove rake? Here's a rakeless solution:
[No rake, 5x RFI]



Even without rake, BB only calls 7.6% of hands. This feels wrong - most of us aren't folding hands like A2s, ATo, or 86s here.

Here's the thing: These GTO solutions probably aren't great indicators of your EV live low stakes poker.

Why? Because tiny changes in strategic assumptions create massive EV shifts. If opponents stack off too light with flushes (common in live games), suddenly your pocket pairs and AXs hands become much more valuable. But we can't model this properly - there's no solver option for "play like a live rec."