[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course you do. You play 3-4-5-6.

[/ QUOTE ]

Niss - Clever reply! It inspired me to compare 3456 with 9TJK.
Here are my (eight non-folding opponents) simulation results for
3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and
9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

hand.....high.....low.....scoop.....total
9TJKs-.....478.....0.....710.....1188
3456s-.....304.....593.....345.....1242

You’re not playing either hand. Fine.
Jeffrey is playing both hands. Fine.
There's not just one style of play that works.

I’m not going to mention any names but it’s interesting that some evidently would shun the 3456 hand while tending to embrace the 9TJK hand.

Although it’s hard to exactly compare the totals because the 9TJK hand scoops more than the 3456 hand, as you can see, the total number of whole pot equivalents won are really rather close, with the 3456 hand actually having a slight edge over the 9TJK hand.

Buzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Buzz, as usual I appreciate your post.

I admittedly am not familiar with your simulations. My question is, does your data derive from thousands of runs of 8 random hands that always play through to the end? Becuase I wonder if that is not a realistic way of considering 3-4-5-6. In reality, if someone plays at you, chances are you are either behind or looking at 50% at best. If you are not behind, you're probably looking at a small pot. So I wonder if valuing 3-4-5-6 based upon simulations of thousands of random hands that don't fold is appropriate.