PLO4, 6Max small stakes online, newbie, preflop ranges, it would be very helpful if you could explain me why RFI KQT9, KJT8, QJT8 is EV+, while RFI KQJ9, KJ98, QJ98 is EV-

1. Where is this from? Maybe the sims aren't converged enough.
2. Tens are important cards. This has been discussed on this forum.

i think the first one should be reversed as kqj9 has a stronger grip on flops than kqt9. it has nuttier draws. same goes for the next two, however i would reverse their order with each other as kjt8 has the weakest straight drawing structure of the group. I would rather open a smooth q hi rundown than a rough k hi rundown.

the deficiencies i mention refer to the gap between the highest and second highest cards, if you have a gap or gaps. you want your gap to be 1 card and preferably between the last and second last or in the middle, or both at the end, ie:

strongest to weakest,

KQJT
KQJ9
KQT9
KQT8
KJT9
KJT8
KJ98
KJ97

i could be wrong

jeff hwang has a thorough section on straight draws in his book, 'plo - the big play strategy.'

KJT8 and QJT8 being more worth a raise than KJ98 and QJ98 should simply be the result of three broadway cards vs two. the "KJT" portion (like all groups of broadway cards) of the former can only make nut straights and draws, compared to "KJ9" which makes a non-nut wrap and some non-nut straights and gutshots. the same would apply to QJT8 over QJ98.

KQT9 being better than KQJ9 i am not 100% on, but i think it has something to do with the T being an activator rank. every straight contains either a T or a 5, so having these ranks in your hand is more valuable when it comes to building or representing straights postflop than seemingly similar/stronger ranks like a J or a 6. also KQT9 has the capacity to hit mid-low flops like 874 stronger than KQJ9, while not sacrificing any of its straight-building capacity on higher flops.

don't get carried away with the activator thing though, again i'm not sure but i don't think it makes a big difference unless there are ranks on either side of it. AKQ2 is still better than AKT2 for example, and T876 is much worse than 9876, but AKT8 is better as an open or 3bet than AKQ8 or AKJ8 because the T gives the 8 access to the mid-section as well as broadway. without the board coverage aspect the only difference it'll really make is as a blocker or in giving pairs/trips/boats on boards with a T in them, which will yield more draws as a result of it being the activator.

Thanks for your answer, was very helpful

You are wrong.

can you offer an explanation of whatever you are copying and pasting?

The data doesn’t lie.

I think your feel for the relatively value of those rundowns is a bit off, specifically does not take into account enough the frequency of flopping draws, KJT8/kqt9 will flop draws more often than KQJ9 and run into domination issues less vs 3-bet ranges.

KJT8 > KQJ9 WHAT!!!!

This shows me how much i need to study PLO

K8s doesn't even connect! .... so I must now seek out the logical explanation for this math

I am assuming that so many more straights occur with JT8 than QJ9, that it outweighs the straight flush possibilities (of K9s).... right? or am i missing something

(I'll hang up and listen)

I never said that the data was wrong. in my opinion the inputs are flawed and so goes with the output. i am asking for an explanation or an attempt at reasoning for those who agree with the outputs. Personally i sort by rank and structure. just by looking at the list, it looks like the machine values rank, structure and the T blocker, if not the JT holding.

i don't want to dwell on trivial things, as most of these are RFIs from all positions (i would personally cut out the KJ combos from utg and prolly hj depending on opponents) but what are we really looking at here? i think there's value in structuring these hands from best to worst so we have better understanding of winning opens. But please, someone provide any other reasons for evaluating such an ordering of hands.

yes please

this is how we learn, not studying charts

These are not trivial differences and the inputs are correct

The reason is domination issues vs 3betting ranges (aa,akxx) and cold calling ranges (high card and low card rundowns)

First, the burden is proof is on those who disagree with the outputs - not those who agree with the outputs. We should all be taking the outputs as truth, and trying to understand the reasoning behind them. If you are approaching this differently let me know and we can go our separate ways as I have nothing really to discuss.

What? This feels a bit like non-sense to me.

Yeah.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, so crimson has hit on all of this IMO, but I can try and elaborate.

First, this sim I showed was for hands in the original post and RFI EV's from the button, but the position matters little with respect to ordinal ranking of these specific hands and just changes the pure EV (more EV on the button than EP).

Second, forget Hwang and all "charts" prior to sims. That's just "feel" and logic and doesn't get at the heart of the game that has been exposed by computers.

Third:
The computer sees this stuff that we don't. It sees that we get to semi-bluff and bluff more with these hands, and also make the nuts a similar amount, it sees all these situations that we just hand wave around and guess at relative strengths and weaknesses. We hand wave - it quantifies.

I don't feel that I'm qualified to explain all the nuances here, but suffice it to say that there ARE nuances, and the computer sees them and shows them to us.

This covers a lot of it.

------------------------------------------------------------

You see this pattern show up a lot with sims - the computer loves TENS. See this thread from last summer where someone rightly pointed out the old school players also knew the power of tens, but now we see it again and again. I was just getting deep into the weeds at the time and it was news to me, but a little bit of work reaped a lot of reward.

thanks for the detailed reply, i am grateful for the time and effort. i admit i have doubts reconciling heads up simulation with real-life play as theory doesn't unfold perfectly into practice. To view simulations as the ultimate truth and then use human inference to reason why, carries just as much weight in my mind as you give a 'feel' player or oldschool player. I don't have a preference to either approach. you either have a human making guesses and reasoning off toy game data versus a human who makes guesses based on his experience and/or database. i think some combination of the two is probably best. Studying sims makes just as much sense as studying a chart imo, and they both come up short. I think it's best to have a solid reasoning behind your actions, or in other words a language of play in which you are fluent.

What makes you say this is toy game data? I think you don’t understand what these sims are doing or what they mean.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge

any PLO sim/solver stuff you recommend?
( Im a "winning" NLHE player but intrigued by PLO, i have some early success oddly w/o researching plo but maybe running lucky. (I also feel that playing PLO made my NL better somehow) )