As,7c,6c postflop strategy (A高两色(3bet底池), 3-bet pot)
On As,7c,6c (A高两色(3bet底池)), Button (in position) c-bets 54.1% of the time when Small Blind (out of position) checks, while Small Blind checks 63.1%. Flop range equity: Small Blind 58.2% vs Button 41.8% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 178,529 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.137%.
Range-level action frequencies
| Range / action | Check | Bet 69 (~33% pot) | Bet 158 (~75% pot) | Bet 900 (~429% pot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Blind · OOP | 63.1% | 36.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Button · IP (vs check) | 45.9% | 54.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Board reading
An A-high two-tone board in an SB 3-bet pot: SB's AK/AQ/AJs make top pair while the 7-6 two-tone structure hands BTN's calling range real connector and flush equity. Note top pair's low-SPR commitment and the draws' raising frequency.
Cross-check from our own engine
| Range | Flop range equity | Theoretical combos | On-board combos | Board-blocker loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Blind · OOP | 58.2% ±0.23pp | 136 | 114 | 22（16.2%） |
| Button · IP | 41.8% ±0.23pp | 108 | 93 | 15（13.9%） |
Method: seeded Monte Carlo (178,529 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp); combo counts are live holdings after removing board blockers.
Solver frequency by hand class
Small Blind (OOP) frequency by class
| Hand class | Combos | Check | Bet 69 (~33% pot) | Bet 158 (~75% pot) | Bet 900 (~429% pot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 99 | 6 | 60.6% | 39.3% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| 65s | 3 | 51.3% | 48.7% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| 76s | 3 | 47.2% | 52.5% | 0.3% | 0.0% |
| A2s | 3 | 52.9% | 47.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A3s | 3 | 76.8% | 23.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A4s | 3 | 73.5% | 26.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A5s | 3 | 78.9% | 21.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AA | 3 | 60.8% | 39.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AJo | 9 | 56.7% | 43.3% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 3 | 46.7% | 53.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AKo | 9 | 48.0% | 51.9% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| AKs | 3 | 41.5% | 58.4% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| AQo | 9 | 53.1% | 46.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 3 | 37.0% | 62.8% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 3 | 82.9% | 17.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 6 | 72.6% | 27.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 4 | 65.5% | 34.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KK | 6 | 81.4% | 18.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 12 | 68.1% | 31.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 4 | 59.1% | 40.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 4 | 81.5% | 18.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 6 | 72.1% | 27.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| TT | 6 | 77.1% | 22.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Button (IP, vs check) frequency by class
| Hand class | Combos | Check | Bet 69 (~33% pot) | Bet 158 (~75% pot) | Bet 900 (~429% pot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66 | 3 | 7.8% | 92.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 77 | 3 | 5.1% | 94.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 88 | 6 | 45.4% | 54.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 6 | 55.0% | 45.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 54s | 4 | 24.2% | 75.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 65s | 3 | 36.8% | 63.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 76s | 3 | 3.9% | 96.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 87s | 3 | 36.7% | 63.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 98s | 4 | 13.3% | 86.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 3 | 70.7% | 29.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AKo | 9 | 31.2% | 68.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 3 | 64.8% | 35.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 3 | 68.6% | 31.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 6 | 59.8% | 40.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 4 | 50.9% | 49.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 4 | 57.1% | 42.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 4 | 83.8% | 16.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 4 | 47.2% | 52.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 4 | 69.4% | 30.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QTs | 4 | 67.7% | 32.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 4 | 32.9% | 67.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| TT | 6 | 59.0% | 41.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Methodology
Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.137% (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 Button's c-bet frequency on As,7c,6c?
54.1% (TexasSolver output at the node where Small Blind checks); correspondingly Small Blind checks 63.1% there.
How are these numbers computed? Are they GTO?
Action frequencies come from a local offline TexasSolver run (400 iterations, exploitability 0.137% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 58.2%/41.8% 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, “As,7c,6c postflop strategy (A高两色(3bet底池), 3-bet pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/sb3bet-vs-btn-as7c6c (2026).