>

Certainly if R and D candidates receive the top 2 vote counts in the 1st round, one or the other would win in the final RCV round. To that extent, bad odds for 3rd party/independent candidates.
OTOH, a reasonable Libertarian, Green or independent would have a much easier time attracting enough 1st preference votes to become one of the top 2 in the 1st round. Voting for such candidates wouldn't be a wasted vote as long as one can also vote R or D as their 2nd (or 3rd) choice. That would improve the odds of STRONG 3rd party/independent candidates winning general elections.
Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here >

I'm in favor! >

I wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.
If there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them. >

RCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. 
Right now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. 
Eliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.