Ad,Qs,4c postflop strategy (AQ双高面, single-raised pot)

On Ad,Qs,4c (AQ双高面), Cutoff (in position) c-bets 66.4% of the time when Big Blind (out of position) checks, while Big Blind checks 100.0%. Flop range equity: Big Blind 46.4% vs Cutoff 53.6% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 180,473 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.377%.

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)	33.6%	0.1%	66.3%	0.0%

Board reading

The A-Q double-broadway board belongs almost entirely to CO: AQ/AK/KQ/QQ class combos all live in the opening range while BB's defense largely whiffs. One of the most extreme c-bet frequency pages in this set.

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	46.4% ±0.23pp	228	199	29（12.7%）
Cutoff · IP	53.6% ±0.23pp	354	299	55（15.5%）

Method: seeded Monte Carlo (180,473 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	6	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
44	3	99.7%	0.1%	0.2%	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	6	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
43s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
54s	3	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	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
98s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A6s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A7s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A8s	3	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	9	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
AJs	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
ATo	9	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
ATs	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
J9s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
JTo	12	99.9%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
JTs	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
K8s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
K9s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
KJo	12	99.9%	0.0%	0.1%	0.0%
KJs	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
KQo	9	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
KTs	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Q9s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
QJo	9	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
QJs	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
QTs	3	99.8%	0.2%	0.0%	0.0%
T8s	4	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
T9s	4	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	6.0%	0.1%	93.9%	0.0%
33	6	13.0%	0.0%	87.0%	0.0%
44	3	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%	0.0%
55	6	12.5%	0.1%	87.4%	0.0%
66	6	23.9%	0.0%	76.1%	0.0%
77	6	49.8%	0.1%	50.1%	0.0%
88	6	98.0%	0.0%	2.0%	0.0%
99	6	97.0%	0.1%	2.9%	0.0%
54s	3	0.1%	0.1%	99.8%	0.0%
65s	4	18.0%	0.0%	82.0%	0.0%
75s	4	10.2%	0.1%	89.8%	0.0%
76s	4	20.0%	0.1%	79.9%	0.0%
86s	4	24.0%	0.2%	75.8%	0.0%
87s	4	24.2%	0.1%	75.7%	0.0%
97s	4	76.1%	0.1%	23.8%	0.0%
98s	4	60.1%	0.1%	39.8%	0.0%
A2s	3	39.9%	0.1%	60.0%	0.0%
A3s	3	37.0%	0.1%	62.9%	0.0%
A4s	2	3.3%	0.3%	96.5%	0.0%
A5s	3	43.9%	0.2%	55.9%	0.0%
A6s	3	43.5%	0.1%	56.3%	0.0%
A7s	3	40.2%	0.1%	59.7%	0.0%
A8s	3	32.5%	0.1%	67.4%	0.0%
A9o	9	36.1%	0.1%	63.8%	0.0%
A9s	3	12.5%	0.1%	87.4%	0.0%
AA	3	21.1%	0.5%	78.4%	0.0%
AJo	9	10.0%	0.1%	89.9%	0.0%
AJs	3	14.4%	0.1%	85.5%	0.0%
AKo	9	0.9%	0.1%	99.0%	0.0%
AKs	3	0.4%	0.1%	99.5%	0.0%
AQo	7	0.0%	0.1%	99.9%	0.0%
AQs	2	0.0%	0.1%	99.9%	0.0%
ATo	9	30.0%	0.0%	70.0%	0.0%
ATs	3	17.9%	0.1%	82.0%	0.0%
J8s	4	40.0%	0.1%	59.9%	0.0%
J9s	4	25.8%	0.1%	74.2%	0.0%
JJ	6	83.4%	0.2%	16.4%	0.0%
JTo	12	21.6%	0.1%	78.2%	0.0%
JTs	4	4.7%	0.1%	95.2%	0.0%
K6s	4	58.3%	0.1%	41.6%	0.0%
K7s	4	53.5%	0.1%	46.4%	0.0%
K8s	4	73.6%	0.1%	26.3%	0.0%
K9s	4	88.8%	0.1%	11.0%	0.0%
KJo	12	17.9%	0.1%	82.0%	0.0%
KJs	4	6.7%	0.2%	93.1%	0.0%
KK	6	78.5%	0.2%	21.3%	0.0%
KQo	9	41.2%	0.1%	58.7%	0.0%
KQs	3	31.4%	0.2%	68.4%	0.0%
KTo	12	11.0%	0.1%	88.9%	0.0%
KTs	4	2.1%	0.1%	97.8%	0.0%
Q8s	3	22.3%	0.2%	77.5%	0.0%
Q9s	3	43.0%	0.2%	56.8%	0.0%
QJo	9	43.1%	0.1%	56.8%	0.0%
QJs	3	58.6%	0.5%	40.9%	0.0%
QQ	3	0.0%	0.4%	99.6%	0.0%
QTo	9	64.3%	0.3%	35.4%	0.0%
QTs	3	50.3%	0.1%	49.5%	0.0%
T8s	4	37.1%	0.1%	62.8%	0.0%
T9s	4	33.8%	0.1%	66.1%	0.0%
TT	6	80.3%	0.2%	19.5%	0.0%

Methodology

Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.377% (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 Ad,Qs,4c?

66.4% (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 (400 iterations, exploitability 0.377% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 46.4%/53.6% 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, “Ad,Qs,4c postflop strategy (AQ双高面, single-raised pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/co-vs-bb-srp-adqs4c (2026).