Qd,8s,3h postflop strategy (Q高干面, single-raised pot)
On Qd,8s,3h (Q高干面), UTG (in position) c-bets 85.4% of the time when Big Blind (out of position) checks, while Big Blind checks 100.0%. Flop range equity: Big Blind 44.3% vs UTG 55.7% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 180,239 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.224%.
Range-level action frequencies
| 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% |
| UTG · IP (vs check) | 14.6% | 48.8% | 36.6% | 0.0% |
Board reading
On a Q-high dry board UTG still owns QQ+/AQ/KQ, but the edge narrows versus A/K-high boards. Compare with the ackd7h page to see the same range's frequency gradient across top cards.
Cross-check from our own engine
| Range | Flop range equity | Theoretical combos | On-board combos | Board-blocker loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Blind · OOP | 44.3% ±0.23pp | 184 | 165 | 19（10.3%） |
| UTG · IP | 55.7% ±0.23pp | 190 | 169 | 21（11.1%） |
Method: seeded Monte Carlo (180,239 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
| 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 | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 6 | 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 | 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 | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A9s | 4 | 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% |
| AQo | 9 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 3 | 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% |
| JJ | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 9 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QTs | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| TT | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
UTG (IP, vs check) frequency by class
| Hand class | Combos | Check | Bet 18 (~33% pot) | Bet 41 (~75% pot) | Bet 975 (~1773% pot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | 6 | 7.9% | 45.1% | 47.0% | 0.0% |
| 33 | 3 | 0.0% | 20.5% | 79.5% | 0.0% |
| 44 | 6 | 19.6% | 35.4% | 45.0% | 0.0% |
| 55 | 6 | 28.2% | 51.0% | 20.9% | 0.0% |
| 66 | 6 | 38.5% | 53.0% | 8.5% | 0.0% |
| 77 | 6 | 33.4% | 63.4% | 3.1% | 0.0% |
| 88 | 3 | 0.0% | 48.3% | 51.7% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 6 | 19.7% | 67.4% | 12.8% | 0.0% |
| 87s | 3 | 6.7% | 45.9% | 47.4% | 0.0% |
| 98s | 3 | 17.9% | 55.8% | 26.2% | 0.0% |
| A4s | 4 | 12.0% | 28.7% | 59.3% | 0.0% |
| A5s | 4 | 15.0% | 46.0% | 39.1% | 0.0% |
| A9s | 4 | 10.7% | 44.3% | 44.9% | 0.0% |
| AA | 6 | 0.4% | 47.5% | 52.1% | 0.0% |
| AJo | 12 | 11.2% | 59.1% | 29.7% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 4 | 23.9% | 43.9% | 32.3% | 0.0% |
| AKo | 12 | 10.1% | 43.6% | 46.3% | 0.0% |
| AKs | 4 | 7.9% | 48.5% | 43.6% | 0.0% |
| AQo | 9 | 24.5% | 45.1% | 30.4% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 3 | 4.2% | 64.0% | 31.9% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 4 | 18.9% | 39.0% | 42.1% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 6 | 22.3% | 53.8% | 23.9% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 4 | 9.0% | 40.9% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 4 | 10.3% | 29.4% | 60.2% | 0.0% |
| KK | 6 | 0.6% | 40.5% | 58.9% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 9 | 14.9% | 58.0% | 27.2% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 3 | 1.6% | 55.5% | 42.9% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 4 | 10.7% | 27.1% | 62.2% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 3 | 17.0% | 57.8% | 25.2% | 0.0% |
| 3 | 1.6% | 74.1% | 24.4% | 0.0% | |
| QTs | 3 | 20.2% | 58.7% | 21.2% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 4 | 5.4% | 49.8% | 44.8% | 0.0% |
| TT | 6 | 21.3% | 51.3% | 27.4% | 0.0% |
Methodology
Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.224% (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.
FAQ
What is UTG's c-bet frequency on Qd,8s,3h?
85.4% (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 0.224% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 44.3%/55.7% are independently cross-checked by our own deterministic engine. A solve is an approximate equilibrium, not a unique answer.
Related
Educational use; not betting advice.
Cite this page: Pailiku, “Qd,8s,3h postflop strategy (Q高干面, single-raised pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/utg-vs-bb-srp-qd8s3h (2026).