Beyond GTO: Mastering Exploitative Poker Strategy

10 May 2025

Intermediate

This material is for medium-skilled players

In today’s strategy segment on CoinPoker, we’re diving into a fascinating spot from a 50/100 No-Limit Texas Hold’em cash game.

Sitting down at the high-stakes tables on CoinPoker is intimidating — even for the best players in the world. In this $50/$100 6-max cash game, two elite professionals, Prodigy and Enlight, face off holding premium hands. But instead of the typical preflop all-in, will this hand reveal a masterclass in postflop play and poker exploitation?

When deciding how much to raise preflop, whether in tournaments or cash games, a smaller raise size, such as a min-raise, is often optimal. It allows you to risk less while still contesting the pot, keeps your range wider, and puts pressure on the blinds without overcommitting.

• ‘Prodigy’, real name Owen Messere, is an English high-stakes No-Limit Hold'em specialist. He made waves in the CoinPoker Cash Game World Championship, where he crushed the field with over $680,000 in profit across 40,000+ hands.
• ‘Enlight’, the online alias of Viktor Kudinov, is a Russian high-stakes pro known for his aggressive, adaptable play. Whether it’s heads-up or shorthanded, low or nosebleed stakes, Enlight has earned respect for his versatility and fearless approach to the game.

The hand kicks off with Prodigy, sitting 100 big blinds deep, opening to 2.1 big blinds holding pocket Queens. Now, many players instinctively think they should raise big here — either to force folds or extract max value. But that’s a misconception.

Let’s be clear: You don’t need to overinflate your raise size with a premium hand like Queens. Instead, aim for a consistent, balanced raise — the same size you’d use with your entire opening range. In fact, in cash games, a small open (often the minimum) is usually ideal, especially if you want to play a wider preflop range.

Why? Because the bigger your raise, the tighter your range needs to be. You’re risking more to win just the blinds, which means you need a stronger starting hand to justify that risk. A smaller raise, like the one Prodigy makes, lets you enter more pots with a balanced range — without becoming too vulnerable. So forget those oversized 7 big blind opens. They’re outdated and inefficient.

Back to the hand: Prodigy opens with  . Then, Enlight, sitting in the cutoff with  , correctly opts to 3-bet. The ideal sizing here is about 3 to 3.5 times the original raise — Enlight bumps it up to 700 (7 big blinds), which is spot-on.

Now action’s back on Prodigy with pocket Queens. Take a moment: What would you do here? There’s really only one good answer — 4-bet. You might be thinking, “But what if I run into Aces or Kings? I could get stacked!”. Well… then welcome to the real world. 

When you’re holding pocket Queens and run into Aces or Kings — you’re going to get stacked sometimes. And that’s okay. It’s part of the game. That doesn’t mean you should shy away from aggression.

As expected, Prodigy responds with a 4-bet, likely around 3x the size of Enlight’s 3-bet. In this case, after Enlight makes it 700, Prodigy goes to 2,000 — leaving 8,000 behind, which is pretty good amount. That’s a smart size: it keeps plenty of room to maneuver post-flop while also applying serious pressure.

Importantly, this sizing allows for bluffing opportunities. Prodigy can mix in hands like suited and as 4-bet bluffs. Why these hands? Because good 4-bet bluff candidates block the strongest hands your opponent can continue with — namely, Aces and Kings. And having an Ace or a King in your hand makes it less likely your opponent does.

Using suited combos gives you extra playability in case you get called, which makes hands like    or   strong candidates for balanced bluffs. In terms of value hands, this 4-bet range should clearly include Aces, Kings, Queens, and Ace-King. So let’s shift focus to Enlight with Ace-King facing the 4-bet.

The question is: does   shove, or is there ever a reason to just call? Most of the time,   should be happy to get all the chips in. It plays well against a typical 4-betting range and denies equity from speculative hands. But there are exceptions.

If you believe Prodigy’s 4-bet range is wide and bluff-heavy — including hands like A5s, A4s, A3s, or even K8s and K7s — then calling becomes a compelling option. Why? Because you crush those hands, and by flatting, you keep their bluffs in the pot. If you jam, those weaker holdings just fold, and you lose out on value.

On the flip side, if you think Prodigy is only 4-betting premium hands: Aces, Kings, Queens, and Ace-King — then   isn’t doing great. You’re either flipping or slightly behind, and when up against Aces or Kings, you’re in rough shape.

If your opponent is overly nitty, that doesn’t mean you should fold   preflop, but it does mean you should proceed with caution. You can still flat the 4-bet occasionally, especially if you're working in some GTO variation into your game. Just calling now and then helps balance your range and avoids always turning ​​​​​​​  into a shove.

In this case, ​​​​​​​  does just call, and we go to the flop:

Ace-King holds the Ace of spades, Queens has the Queen of spades. With 4,150 in the middle, this board texture is great for a small continuation bet — something Prodigy executes well, betting 1,867. That sizing is solid. A lot of players make a mistake here — they go full blast, betting pot or even jamming for 2x pot, thinking "If you’ve got me beat, so be it". That’s bad logic.

Instead, in this scenario you want to give your opponent every chance to stay in the pot with their backdoor equity: hands like  ,  , or even  . These hands might 3-bet pre and call a 4-bet, and you absolutely want to let them continue.

A smaller bet still builds the pot and gets value from worse hands — like mid pocket pairs that aren’t folding, and of course, ​​​​​​​ , which is going to float here. But keep in mind: such hand​​​ isn’t in great shape now.

With ​​​​​​​  on this flop, calling is the standard line. Sure, you could raise and get it in if you think Prodigy’s range is overly loose. That might be the move if you don’t expect to continue well on many turns. 

But by raising, you risk pushing out bluffs and dominated hands, like  , that you want to keep in. So, flatting is preferred here. It keeps the pot manageable while forcing Prodigy to continue with hands you dominate.

Turn:  | Pot: 7,885, and here’s where things get GTO-interesting. In a balanced strategy, Prodigy should now just jam. You’ve got under one pot-sized bet behind — seems straightforward, right? You might even ask, “Why are we overanalyzing this hand? It’s Queens vs. Ace-King in a 4-bet pot. Just rip it in”.

Prodigy has 6,282 chips left and chooses to bet 3,548 — just over half his remaining stack. It’s a pretty fascinating spot:

Had Prodigy simply shoved, Enlight with ​​​​​​​  would likely have folded. There’s no backdoor equity left, and facing a jam from a 4-bet preflop aggressor on this board, folding would be the disciplined move.

But this half-stack bet? That’s where it gets interesting. Now it starts to look... suspicious. Enlight might begin to second-guess the situation. Is Prodigy really going for thin value? Is he bluffing? Is he trying to look strong without committing it all?

Maybe Enlight convinces himself that Prodigy is losing it with a hand like  , trying to bluff without risking a full stack — almost like a “fake jam” to save $3k if it fails. That kind of non-standard sizing can lead opponents to misread the situation and make mistakes.

So what kind of mistake could ​​​​​​​  make? Well, if Prodigy’s range is strictly strong value, then such hand should fold. It’s not getting the right price to draw. If it shoves, it’ll get snapped off and be in awful shape. And calling? Still not priced well. Even worse, a call might commit Enlight to calling future streets, especially the river.

Because once you call this turn bet, and the river completes, the pot will be big enough that folding becomes harder, even if the read is murky. You might end up having to call off, just hoping to catch a bluff. From an off-table, analytical standpoint, the spot is very unclear. Some may argue this bet isn’t GTO approved — and maybe that’s true.

If we generalize a bit, one thing many high-stakes online cash players struggle with is recognizing when a weird line is value versus when it’s a bluff. They often level themselves into over-aggressive responses or overly optimistic hero calls.

And in this case, the half-stack sizing might just bait Enlight into doing something he shouldn’t — like jamming or calling with ​​​​​​​  when folding would’ve been the better play. If that happens, Prodigy’s   scoop the pot, having essentially induced a big mistake without going all-in.

And here we go — Enlight rips it in. Now you might ask: does jamming ​​​​​​​  ​​​​​​​ make sense here? Well, it depends on what you believe Prodigy’s turn betting range looks like. If you think it includes value hands like Aces and Kings (which Ace-King blocks), Queens, maybe even Jacks or a hand like Ace-10 suited, as well as some semi-bluffing draws, then the shove has some merit.

Here’s the logic: By shoving, Enlight forces the draws to call off their equity. If Prodigy holds a flush draw, say  ​​​​​​​, he now has to call it off and pay the full price. But if Enlight had just called the turn, Prodigy could check-fold the river when he misses and save 2,800 chips.

So the shove punishes Prodigy’s draws and removes their ability to bluff the river cheaply. And consider the dynamics: once Enlight just calls the turn, the river pot will be around 20k, and Prodigy would only have about 3k left. Enlight would be priced in to call any river bluff. So if a bluff is coming anyway, jamming now forces that equity in while denying fold equity to weaker hands.

But here’s the Trap: If Prodigy isn’t betting many draws, and is instead only value-heavy, then this jam becomes a disaster. Enlight runs straight into the top of the range, and ​​​​​​​  , despite being a premium hand, ends up dominated.

This is a classic example of a leveling war — a psychological battleground where both players try to outthink each other’s range and tendencies. Yes, these spots are fun, complex, and full of nuance. But they’re also dangerous.

But if you’re among the best in the world, and you have accurate reads on how your opponent reacts in specific spots — maybe they’re overly aggressive, tilted, or just too passive — then by all means, deviate, and punish them. At the end of the day, poker isn't just about the math — it's about reading people, breaking patterns, and pushing edges when you see them clearly.

The most effective way to crush opponents who have strategic leaks — leaks that you recognize but they don’t — is to exploit them to the maximum. Don’t fall into the trap of mindlessly following solvers. Yes, GTO study is essential to understand the baseline strategy, but real profit often lies in deviating from equilibrium when your opponent does.

Let’s bring it back to the hand: Imagine Prodigy somehow knew Enlight was always jamming over small bets, because Enlight believes small sizing is typically bluff-heavy. The counter strategy? Only bet small with strong value hands, induce the jam, and snap it off ahead. That’s pure exploitative play.

Of course, it’s rare to have that level of insight — but if you do, the reward can be massive. So that’s it for today. Good luck at the tables, have fun, and may your exploits hit hard and often!