6s,5s,4d postflop strategy (低连两色湿面, single-raised pot)

On 6s,5s,4d (低连两色湿面), Cutoff (in position) c-bets 55.7% of the time when Big Blind (out of position) checks, while Big Blind checks 83.6%. Flop range equity: Big Blind 48.4% vs Cutoff 51.6% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 179,780 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.249%.

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	83.6%	14.9%	1.6%	0.0%
Cutoff · IP (vs check)	44.3%	55.7%	0.0%	0.0%

Board reading

The 6-5-4 low connected board is bad news for CO: the opening range holds few low cards while BB's defense is packed with two pairs, straights and draws. Watch the check frequency and the response to check-raises.

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	48.4% ±0.23pp	228	213	15（6.6%）
Cutoff · IP	51.6% ±0.23pp	354	335	19（5.4%）

Method: seeded Monte Carlo (179,780 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	67.9%	31.0%	1.1%	0.0%
33	6	75.9%	23.2%	0.8%	0.0%
44	3	75.1%	22.6%	2.3%	0.0%
55	3	77.6%	19.9%	2.5%	0.0%
66	3	73.5%	23.0%	3.5%	0.0%
77	6	72.0%	25.8%	2.3%	0.0%
88	6	76.7%	21.5%	1.8%	0.0%
99	6	81.6%	17.6%	0.8%	0.0%
43s	3	76.4%	21.6%	2.1%	0.0%
54s	2	79.0%	21.0%	0.0%	0.0%
65s	3	77.7%	21.3%	1.0%	0.0%
76s	3	76.8%	22.0%	1.2%	0.0%
87s	4	74.4%	21.2%	4.4%	0.0%
97s	4	75.0%	21.6%	3.4%	0.0%
98s	4	78.6%	18.1%	3.3%	0.0%
A6s	3	72.8%	26.2%	1.0%	0.0%
A7s	4	82.4%	15.3%	2.3%	0.0%
A8s	4	82.5%	15.9%	1.6%	0.0%
A9o	12	84.3%	13.8%	1.9%	0.0%
A9s	4	94.2%	5.5%	0.2%	0.0%
AJo	12	83.5%	16.4%	0.1%	0.0%
AJs	4	84.7%	15.0%	0.3%	0.0%
ATo	12	91.4%	8.3%	0.3%	0.0%
ATs	4	94.5%	5.2%	0.3%	0.0%
J9s	4	85.0%	13.3%	1.7%	0.0%
JTo	12	93.4%	5.2%	1.4%	0.0%
JTs	4	91.4%	7.2%	1.4%	0.0%
K8s	4	73.4%	24.0%	2.6%	0.0%
K9s	4	79.3%	17.9%	2.8%	0.0%
KJo	12	86.3%	11.4%	2.4%	0.0%
KJs	4	96.7%	3.0%	0.3%	0.0%
KQo	12	91.9%	7.8%	0.3%	0.0%
KTs	4	87.4%	11.3%	1.3%	0.0%
Q9s	4	81.9%	15.9%	2.1%	0.0%
QJo	12	85.7%	11.8%	2.5%	0.0%
QJs	4	88.1%	10.2%	1.7%	0.0%
QTs	4	92.0%	6.8%	1.2%	0.0%
T8s	4	74.9%	21.1%	4.0%	0.0%
T9s	4	85.8%	13.2%	1.0%	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	74.5%	25.5%	0.0%	0.0%
33	6	44.0%	56.0%	0.0%	0.0%
44	3	20.0%	80.0%	0.0%	0.0%
55	3	16.3%	83.7%	0.0%	0.0%
66	3	1.4%	98.6%	0.0%	0.0%
77	6	19.1%	80.9%	0.0%	0.0%
88	6	9.6%	90.4%	0.0%	0.0%
99	6	24.4%	75.6%	0.0%	0.0%
54s	2	47.6%	52.3%	0.0%	0.0%
65s	3	28.3%	71.7%	0.0%	0.0%
75s	3	46.6%	53.4%	0.0%	0.0%
76s	3	43.2%	56.8%	0.0%	0.0%
86s	3	54.8%	45.2%	0.0%	0.0%
87s	4	0.1%	99.9%	0.0%	0.0%
97s	4	21.1%	78.9%	0.0%	0.0%
98s	4	30.1%	69.9%	0.0%	0.0%
A2s	4	36.2%	63.8%	0.0%	0.0%
A3s	4	27.1%	72.9%	0.0%	0.0%
A4s	3	28.8%	71.2%	0.0%	0.0%
A5s	3	26.6%	73.4%	0.0%	0.0%
A6s	3	6.3%	93.7%	0.0%	0.0%
A7s	4	36.0%	64.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A8s	4	59.4%	40.6%	0.0%	0.0%
A9o	12	31.4%	68.6%	0.0%	0.0%
A9s	4	75.2%	24.8%	0.0%	0.0%
AA	6	63.6%	36.4%	0.0%	0.0%
AJo	12	85.5%	14.5%	0.0%	0.0%
AJs	4	83.8%	16.2%	0.0%	0.0%
AKo	12	29.6%	70.4%	0.0%	0.0%
AKs	4	61.0%	39.0%	0.0%	0.0%
AQo	12	42.7%	57.3%	0.0%	0.0%
AQs	4	54.1%	45.9%	0.0%	0.0%
ATo	12	82.6%	17.4%	0.0%	0.0%
ATs	4	86.2%	13.8%	0.0%	0.0%
J8s	4	53.0%	47.0%	0.0%	0.0%
J9s	4	35.9%	64.1%	0.0%	0.0%
JJ	6	45.4%	54.6%	0.0%	0.0%
JTo	12	37.0%	63.0%	0.0%	0.0%
JTs	4	46.9%	53.1%	0.0%	0.0%
K6s	3	28.8%	71.2%	0.0%	0.0%
K7s	4	23.9%	76.1%	0.0%	0.0%
K8s	4	42.1%	57.9%	0.0%	0.0%
K9s	4	27.6%	72.4%	0.0%	0.0%
KJo	12	57.3%	42.7%	0.0%	0.0%
KJs	4	82.6%	17.4%	0.0%	0.0%
KK	6	60.7%	39.3%	0.0%	0.0%
KQo	12	63.7%	36.3%	0.0%	0.0%
KQs	4	90.6%	9.4%	0.0%	0.0%
KTo	12	29.0%	71.0%	0.0%	0.0%
KTs	4	40.7%	59.3%	0.0%	0.0%
Q8s	4	36.4%	63.6%	0.0%	0.0%
Q9s	4	25.0%	75.0%	0.0%	0.0%
QJo	12	36.1%	63.9%	0.0%	0.0%
QJs	4	58.8%	41.2%	0.0%	0.0%
QQ	6	44.6%	55.4%	0.0%	0.0%
QTo	12	28.1%	71.9%	0.0%	0.0%
QTs	4	37.9%	62.1%	0.0%	0.0%
T8s	4	39.4%	60.6%	0.0%	0.0%
T9s	4	57.4%	42.5%	0.0%	0.0%
TT	6	29.5%	70.5%	0.0%	0.0%

Methodology

Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.249% (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 6s,5s,4d?

55.7% (TexasSolver output at the node where Big Blind checks); correspondingly Big Blind checks 83.6% there.

How are these numbers computed? Are they GTO?

Action frequencies come from a local offline TexasSolver run (400 iterations, exploitability 0.249% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 48.4%/51.6% 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, “6s,5s,4d postflop strategy (低连两色湿面, single-raised pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/co-vs-bb-srp-6s5s4d (2026).