[SuitedBaby]

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