Kh,9c,3s postflop strategy (K高干面, single-raised pot)

On Kh,9c,3s (K高干面), Cutoff (in position) c-bets 58.1% of the time when Big Blind (out of position) checks, while Big Blind checks 100.0%. Flop range equity: Big Blind 47.6% vs Cutoff 52.4% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 180,377 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.094%.

Range-level action frequencies

Range-level frequency per action (pot 55; bet sizes annotated as % of pot)
Range / action	Check	Bet 18 (~33% pot)	Bet 41 (~75% pot)	Bet 975 (~1773% pot)
Big Blind · OOP	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Cutoff · IP (vs check)	41.9%	12.1%	46.0%	0.0%

Board reading

Same K-high dry texture as the BTN version, but CO opens a tighter, stronger range — put this page next to the btn-vs-bb K-high page to see directly how sizing and frequency shift as the opening range tightens.

Cross-check from our own engine

Range-vs-range equity and combo coverage (equity computed independently of the solver)
Range	Flop range equity	Theoretical combos	On-board combos	Board-blocker loss
Big Blind · OOP	47.6% ±0.23pp	228	201	27（11.8%）
Cutoff · IP	52.4% ±0.23pp	354	314	40（11.3%）

Method: seeded Monte Carlo (180,377 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp); combo counts are live holdings after removing board blockers.

Solver frequency by hand class

Big Blind (OOP) frequency by class

Big Blind (OOP) action frequency per hand class
Hand class	Combos	Check	Bet 18 (~33% pot)	Bet 41 (~75% pot)	Bet 975 (~1773% pot)
22	6	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
33	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
44	6	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
55	6	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
66	6	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
77	6	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
88	6	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
99	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
43s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
54s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
65s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
76s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
87s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
97s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
98s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A6s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A7s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A8s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A9o	9	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A9s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
AJo	12	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
AJs	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
ATo	12	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
ATs	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
J9s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
JTo	12	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
JTs	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
K8s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
K9s	2	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
KJo	9	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
KJs	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
KQo	9	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
KTs	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Q9s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
QJo	12	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
QJs	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
QTs	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
T8s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
T9s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

Cutoff (IP, vs check) frequency by class

Cutoff (IP) action frequency per hand class
Hand class	Combos	Check	Bet 18 (~33% pot)	Bet 41 (~75% pot)	Bet 975 (~1773% pot)
22	6	22.9%	5.5%	71.6%	0.0%
33	3	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%	0.0%
44	6	74.2%	9.7%	16.1%	0.0%
55	6	91.2%	7.0%	1.8%	0.0%
66	6	94.2%	5.9%	0.0%	0.0%
77	6	91.9%	8.1%	0.0%	0.0%
88	6	89.2%	10.8%	0.0%	0.0%
99	3	0.2%	27.6%	72.1%	0.0%
54s	4	40.3%	4.2%	55.5%	0.0%
65s	4	32.7%	3.4%	63.9%	0.0%
75s	4	36.6%	10.1%	53.3%	0.0%
76s	4	47.1%	8.6%	44.3%	0.0%
86s	4	53.5%	12.2%	34.2%	0.0%
87s	4	57.1%	13.7%	29.2%	0.0%
97s	3	30.9%	26.8%	42.3%	0.0%
98s	3	42.6%	20.4%	37.0%	0.0%
A2s	4	25.8%	7.1%	67.1%	0.0%
A3s	3	29.8%	7.0%	63.2%	0.0%
A4s	4	37.6%	5.6%	56.9%	0.0%
A5s	4	33.2%	6.3%	60.5%	0.0%
A6s	4	36.9%	1.5%	61.7%	0.0%
A7s	4	49.4%	2.6%	48.0%	0.0%
A8s	4	63.7%	6.3%	30.0%	0.0%
A9o	9	59.0%	13.4%	27.6%	0.0%
A9s	3	16.5%	24.5%	58.9%	0.0%
AA	6	0.2%	6.8%	93.0%	0.0%
AJo	12	44.1%	12.8%	43.2%	0.0%
AJs	4	91.0%	7.5%	1.5%	0.0%
AKo	9	13.1%	10.6%	76.3%	0.0%
AKs	3	2.6%	7.8%	89.6%	0.0%
AQo	12	44.6%	8.8%	46.5%	0.0%
AQs	4	80.0%	7.0%	13.0%	0.0%
ATo	12	20.5%	23.6%	56.0%	0.0%
ATs	4	66.0%	5.8%	28.2%	0.0%
J8s	4	17.4%	15.1%	67.4%	0.0%
J9s	3	82.9%	15.9%	1.2%	0.0%
JJ	6	59.8%	18.7%	21.5%	0.0%
JTo	12	33.0%	12.9%	54.0%	0.0%
JTs	4	6.4%	14.1%	79.5%	0.0%
K6s	3	62.0%	20.6%	17.4%	0.0%
K7s	3	46.4%	25.9%	27.7%	0.0%
K8s	3	26.2%	26.5%	47.3%	0.0%
K9s	2	0.3%	13.6%	86.1%	0.0%
KJo	9	57.1%	7.3%	35.6%	0.0%
KJs	3	13.6%	18.4%	68.0%	0.0%
KK	3	0.0%	24.6%	75.4%	0.0%
KQo	9	17.9%	20.4%	61.7%	0.0%
KQs	3	3.1%	10.0%	86.9%	0.0%
KTo	9	69.6%	8.2%	22.2%	0.0%
KTs	3	15.6%	21.3%	63.1%	0.0%
Q8s	4	14.0%	21.7%	64.3%	0.0%
Q9s	3	59.1%	13.0%	27.9%	0.0%
QJo	12	28.0%	12.9%	59.1%	0.0%
QJs	4	8.2%	12.1%	79.6%	0.0%
QQ	6	76.0%	13.3%	10.7%	0.0%
QTo	12	26.8%	11.1%	62.1%	0.0%
QTs	4	0.4%	15.4%	84.2%	0.0%
T8s	4	54.0%	6.5%	39.5%	0.0%
T9s	3	94.1%	5.2%	0.8%	0.0%
TT	6	43.8%	16.3%	39.9%	0.0%

Methodology

Solver: TexasSolver (console); 1500 iterations, accuracy target 0.1, exploitability 0.094% (closer to 0 is closer to Nash equilibrium). Solving is done locally and offline — only data outputs ship, and the AGPL component is isolated from production code (not linked, no binary distribution). Range equity is computed independently by our own deterministic engine as a cross-check.

Sitewide methodology →

FAQ

What is Cutoff's c-bet frequency on Kh,9c,3s?

58.1% (TexasSolver output at the node where Big Blind checks); correspondingly Big Blind checks 100.0% there.

How are these numbers computed? Are they GTO?

Action frequencies come from a local offline TexasSolver run (1500 iterations, exploitability 0.094% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 47.6%/52.4% are independently cross-checked by our own deterministic engine. A solve is an approximate equilibrium, not a unique answer.

Educational use; not betting advice.

Cite this page: Pailiku, “Kh,9c,3s postflop strategy (K高干面, single-raised pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/co-vs-bb-srp-kh9c3s (2026).