High gap versus low gap rundown hands
 

I have frequently read in Omaha literature (and on the 2+2 Omaha forum) that the "low-gap" hands like 987 5 are quite superior to the "high-gap" hands like 9 765. Slotboom, Ciaffone, Stewart, etc. state this in multiple places. However it seems to me that they are actually very close in value, perhaps equal, with the "mid-gap" 98 65 actually slightly weaker.

Unless I have counted wrong, both 987 6 and 9 765 make the same number of nut straights (11) and non-nut straights (6). Yes, the straights made by 987 5 are overall somewhat higher but then they are more square in the playing zone too. However it should be noted that the "mid-gap" hands like 98 65 are somewhat weaker making only 10 nut straights and 6 non-nut straights. Also, in the special case of JT9 7 versus J 987 the high-gap JT9 7 does benefit from making more nut hands with the JT.

I think that the problem in recognizing the fact that the high-gap hands are probably near equal in value to the low-gap hands may come from the biggest draws they can flop. It is true that the low-gap hands can flop the #1 biggest draw (of these hands) to nut straight hands. This fact alone makes it seem powerful. But what is probably not noticed is that each can flop 4 different draws that have 13 or more outs. When you tally all of the nut outs and non-nut outs for each of these big draws they come out to be exactly equal for each. Low gap hands have more of the best and the worst big draws and the high gap hands have more middle strength big draws. Again, check my work.

I don't know how these hands fare when comparing the relative resistance of the straights they make to countefeit by higher straight redraws. It is a complex analysis and I have only looked at it briefly since I don't know if it is worth the time. However at first glance, as expected, it seems likely the higher the cards the better but I don't have figures on the differences. Possibly there is some meaningful difference here but I would guess it is in the noise when compared to flush and full house redraws, at least in terms of signicantly devaluing one type hand over the other. Suffice to say that I believe they are much more similar in value than has often been opined.

"9875 is way better than 9765" looks right and made sense to me when I read it everywhere. However when I studied it to find out why, in fact, I surprisingly found that it wasn't true. DUCY. I also believe this concept has never accurately been addressed in print before. Lol.

I am a newbie to PLO, prone to mistakes, and not that bright so I eagerly await correction on the errors of my conclusions and what I have missed.

Patty

Re: High gap versus low gap rundown hands
 

Look at redraws you have with the nutstraight with 9875 and with 9765.

Re: High gap versus low gap rundown hands
 

this maybe a leak but i pretty much play both hands exactly the same in 6 max. i personally think whether a hand has 1 or 2 suits is way, way more important than where the gaps are in a rundown hand. i would take 5679ss ove 5789ns any day of the week, as generaly speaking redraws to straights generally suck compaired to flush redraws

Re: High gap versus low gap rundown hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
this maybe a leak but i pretty much play both hands exactly the same in 6 max. i personally think whether a hand has 1 or 2 suits is way, way more important than where the gaps are in a rundown hand. i would take 5679ss ove 5789ns any day of the week, as generaly speaking redraws to straights generally suck compaired to flush redraws

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Re: High gap versus low gap rundown hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Look at redraws you have with the nutstraight with 9875 and with 9765.

[/ QUOTE ]

I addressed this in my original post and as I stated I suspect that 987 5 would be stronger than 9 765 in this respect. BTW, which nut straight? Each makes 11 nut straights and it matters which one you are talking about.

However, I have a couple of thoughts concerning redraws to higher straights. First, if you make your hand on the river there are no redraws period. Second, if you make your vulnerable though nut straight on the turn the differences between the possibilities of higher straight redraws between the two hands pales (as an overall percentage difference) when added to the totality of all redraws. Basically, for this difference to vest you have to make your hand on the turn with 9 765, a higher straight redraw has to hit on the river, and it has to be one that 987 5 would have had protection from. A pretty big parlay to call the 9875 hands "much better" than the 9765 hands.

My point is not that they aren't different in strength, but that the difference is very, very small. So small that preflop there should be no playing differences between these hands as many noted authors, including on this forum, have advised. The difference in these two types of hands is on the order of the difference between 9876 and 8765.

I think.

Patty

Re: High gap versus low gap rundown hands
 

I cant see the point of this.
The difference is so small its insignificant.

The only difference I can see is if you flop a set its obviously better to have higher cards.

Re: High gap versus low gap rundown hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
I cant see the point of this.
The difference is so small its insignificant.

[/ QUOTE ]


The point is that the difference is so small it is insignificant.

Yet many sources go out of their way to state that there is a significant difference in these hands. I am just trying to correct an inaccuracy that is widely stated in the Omaha literature and occasionally on this forum. Isn't that the mantra of the founders of this forum, lol.

Here are a few recent threads on 2+2 that discuss these types of hands but as I said before you will find the same in the work of Slotboom, Ciaffone, Stewart, and others:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post8514221

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post10374914

The issue isn't a big one but if I simply said it wasn't so (as many authors have simply said it is so) I don't think it would have been as convincing.


Patty