From GTO to Profit: Exploiting Small C-Bets

In the 2026 poker landscape, GTO knowledge — or at least a solid grasp of its fundamentals — is a necessity for aspiring players. However, understanding what game theory recommends is only the starting point. The real edge comes from knowing when and how to deviate to maximize EV against real opponents.

Poker remains a game of exploitation. Optimal strategies assume perfect play on both sides, but your actual opponents will never meet that standard. As a result, the most profitable decisions come from identifying where and how players deviate — and responding accordingly.

On our blog, we regularly explore exploitative concepts, including a recent piece on adjusting against recreational players. This article continues in the same spirit, focusing on a spot where even competent opponents frequently underperform.

A Stronger Player Pool Doesn’t Mean a Flawless One

There is no doubt that the overall poker population is improving, especially players who actively care about their results. That does not mean mistakes disappear — they move. Leaks that were common a few years ago are now less prevalent, while new ones emerge as strategies evolve.

If you primarily play MTTs, today’s topic is particularly relevant, although cash game players will likely recognize the underlying dynamics as well.

In this entry, we’ll examine a common scenario in which many opponents — including non-recreational players — deviate significantly from GTO, creating clear opportunities for exploitation.

Small C-Bets: Effective, Popular — and Overused

Continuation betting small has become one of the most widely adopted strategies in modern poker. It allows players to apply pressure efficiently, win pots without risking much of their stack, and maintain flexibility across future streets.

Consider a standard situation: the Button opens, the Big Blind defends, effective stacks are 35 BB, and the pot on the flop is roughly 5.5 BB.

Looking at an aggregated Deepsolver report covering 114 distinct flop textures, with five available bet sizes (¼, ½, ¾, 100%, and 150% pot), the most common sizing is clearly ¼ pot. It is chosen 43.2% of the time, followed by the ½ pot bet at around 27%.

Betting small is a good starting point on many flops

Exact frequencies vary between simulations and board textures, but one pattern is consistent: solvers frequently prefer betting small on the flop ( typically in the 10–30% pot range).

This approach has obvious advantages:

it is easy to execute,
it generates immediate fold equity,
even when called, the your check-raising range retains equity and future playability,
and in later tournament stages, even small pots carry significant ICM value.

Given these benefits, it’s no surprise that many MTT players lean heavily into small c-betting strategies.

When a Good Strategy Becomes a Leak

Problems arise when players apply this concept mechanically. Some opponents c-bet far more often than theory recommends — sometimes reaching 80% or even close to 100% frequency — assuming that small bets are always safe and profitable.

When left unchallenged, range-betting small can indeed become close to an automatic source of profit for the aggressor.

The key question, then, is how to respond when facing opponents who c-bet too frequently.

When and Why Check-Raising Gains Value

The natural counter is an increased emphasis on check-raising. However, before discussing exploits, it’s important to understand how this interaction looks in equilibrium.

Against a ¼ pot c-bet on the flop, Deepsolver suggests the following average response from the Big Blind, based again on 114 flop textures.

Do you check-raise enough against a flop c-bets?

Because this data is aggregated, it hides significant board-specific variation. On some flops — particularly low or paired boards such as T44 rainbow, 633 with a flush draw, or 732 rainbow — optimal check-raising frequencies exceed 20%. On others, including boards like AAQ, AKT with a flush draw, or many monotone textures, check-raising should be close to zero.

This distinction matters. However, once we exclude the worst candidates, increasing your check-raise frequency against opponents who auto-c-bet — or whom you strongly suspect of doing so — is often a profitable adjustment.

The logic mirrors that of frequent c-betting, but from the defender’s side: you win pots outright with fold equity, retain equity when called, and frequently gain profitable turn and river opportunities.

Why Check-Raises Get More Folds Than They Should

If you use a HUD or have access to a good enough number of hand histories, you can investigate how often your opponents call check-raises after continuation betting. Many players defend less than 50% of the time, which already suggests overfolding. Even players who are conscious of not c-betting excessively often struggle to respond correctly once faced with aggression.

To illustrate this, consider a K83 flop with a flush draw — a texture with a near-average theoretical check-raise frequency.

On this board, the in-position player will often range-bet ¼ pot, which is a solver-approved strategy. In equilibrium, the Big Blind should check-raise 13.8% of the time, while the Button is expected to defend more than 56% of their range.

In practice, this level of defense is rare.

Many GTO calls against a check-raise are hard to find in-game

Against a flop check-raise on this board, the Button should call approximately 56.8% of hands. That includes all one-pair hands or better, all flush draws, all backdoor Ace-high flush draws, and even some weaker backdoor combinations such as QJ, QT, JT, J9, or T9.

Additionally, certain Ace-high hands with relevant blockers are supposed to continue, and even hands like QJo or JTo should be defended by the in-position player at some frequency.

Most opponents will fall well short of this threshold. What if we input our assumptions into the solver?

The more your opponent folds, the more often you should attack their bets

If we adjust the Deepsolver simulation to reflect a more realistic defense — for example, by assuming the Button calls only 50% of the time instead of the optimal 56.8%, folding some non-Ace backdoor flush draws and weaker Ace-highs — the optimal check-raising frequency increases to 18.9%.

This is a meaningful jump and, at the same time, a clear adjustment to your flop strategy, driven entirely by opponent tendencies.

Turning Theory Into Action

Even when your check-raise gets called, the core advantages remain. You will often pick up additional equity on later streets, create profitable opportunities to continue applying pressure, or occasionally reach showdown without having to invest further chips.

While additional factors — such as ICM pressure — always need to be taken into account, revisiting and refining your check-raising strategy can be a high-impact adjustment. Many board textures, particularly low, rainbow, or two-tone flops without dominant high cards, naturally lend themselves to more aggressive play.

By using Deepsolver and its aggregate reports, you can identify boards that tend to be over c-bet and separate them from textures where a more cautious approach is justified.

Keep in mind that aggregated data highlights overall tendencies rather than prescribing rigid rules. Each decision should ultimately reflect the specific board, stack sizes, tournament dynamics, and — most importantly — how you expect your opponent to respond.