Hold'em Poker and GTO and OEV – Which is best?

Optimal Exploitative Value OEV: This is a strategy that will yield the highest Expected Value EV. Focus on OEV not Game Theory Optimal. This is what you want to use, if you want to win the most money.

Sub Optimal Strategy SOS: This is any strategy any strategy that performs more poorly than OEV.

Rock Paper Scissors is a simple example. If your opponent chooses Scissors most of the time then you should always choose Rock. Against a skilled opponent you would choose randomly, each 33.3% of the time. The idea behind OEV is that you exploit an opponents mistakes. In Hold'em, real opponents make many mistakes. You exploit their mistakes to win. Simple.

GTO is not wrong It is as solid as Calculus. You may not understand it, but is based in undisputed math. There is much to learn from GTO, but be cautious. If you ever find an perfect opponent who plays perfectly, go to another table, now!

Indifference Points. There will often be actions that you can take in a certain situation that have equal Expected Value. The point in the middle is the Indifference Point. Distribute your play equally on both sides but randomly. Deny your opponent the ability exploit you when he sees a pattern.

Pot Odds. If you bet $1 into a $3 pot you are laying 2:1 odds by betting. If the pot is offering you 2:1 on your bluffs, you can become Indifferent by to checking and betting your bluffs your opponent must call 66.7% of the time. If they deviate from this, a mistake, then you can exploit them by always bluffing if they call less or by never bluffing if they call more. You can beat them any with 2 blank cards. I suggest you tip the dealer though.

Exploitation is the key.

GTO strategies can not be exploited and can never lose in the long term.

The toughest opponents are simply the ones that make the fewest exploitable choices. But they all make mistakes.

PeakHoldem can dramatically improve your win rate.

Every future release of PeakHoldem will increase the accuracy of opponent play. Unique enough to be patent pending. 62/732,519.