Jd,8h,3s postflop strategy (J高干面(3bet底池), 3-bet pot)
On Jd,8h,3s (J高干面(3bet底池)), Button (in position) c-bets 51.4% of the time when Small Blind (out of position) checks, while Small Blind checks 25.5%. Flop range equity: Small Blind 51.8% vs Button 48.2% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 179,882 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.151%.
Range-level action frequencies
| Range / action | Check | Bet 69 (~33% pot) | Bet 158 (~75% pot) | Bet 900 (~429% pot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Blind · OOP | 25.5% | 0.0% | 74.5% | 0.0% |
| Button · IP (vs check) | 48.5% | 51.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Board reading
J-8-3 dry after an SB 3-bet: SB's big pairs and AJs/KJs stay ahead, but BTN's JTs/J9s/88 interact plenty. Compare with the BB 3-bet pages to see how different blind 3-betting shapes propagate downstream.
Cross-check from our own engine
| Range | Flop range equity | Theoretical combos | On-board combos | Board-blocker loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Blind · OOP | 51.8% ±0.23pp | 136 | 126 | 10（7.4%） |
| Button · IP | 48.2% ±0.23pp | 108 | 96 | 12（11.1%） |
Method: seeded Monte Carlo (179,882 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 | 7.5% | 0.0% | 92.5% | 0.0% |
| 65s | 4 | 92.3% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| 76s | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A2s | 4 | 48.1% | 0.0% | 51.9% | 0.0% |
| A3s | 3 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| A4s | 4 | 70.6% | 0.0% | 29.4% | 0.0% |
| A5s | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AA | 6 | 29.8% | 0.0% | 70.2% | 0.0% |
| AJo | 9 | 11.0% | 0.0% | 89.0% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 3 | 28.9% | 0.0% | 71.1% | 0.0% |
| AKo | 12 | 8.2% | 0.0% | 91.8% | 0.0% |
| AKs | 4 | 4.3% | 0.0% | 95.7% | 0.0% |
| AQo | 12 | 29.3% | 0.0% | 70.7% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 4 | 2.2% | 0.0% | 97.8% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 4 | 12.3% | 0.0% | 87.7% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 3 | 10.5% | 0.0% | 89.5% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 3 | 3.6% | 0.0% | 96.4% | 0.0% |
| KK | 6 | 5.2% | 0.0% | 94.8% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 12 | 36.5% | 0.0% | 63.5% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 4 | 4.3% | 0.0% | 95.8% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 3 | 8.4% | 0.0% | 91.6% | 0.0% |
| 6 | 10.4% | 0.0% | 89.6% | 0.0% | |
| TT | 6 | 3.9% | 0.0% | 96.1% | 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 | 6 | 99.8% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 77 | 6 | 50.1% | 49.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 88 | 3 | 0.1% | 99.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 6 | 69.8% | 30.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 54s | 4 | 16.3% | 83.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 65s | 4 | 37.4% | 62.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 76s | 4 | 12.5% | 87.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 87s | 3 | 48.2% | 51.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 98s | 3 | 56.6% | 43.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 3 | 31.3% | 68.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AKo | 12 | 67.8% | 32.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 4 | 75.7% | 24.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 4 | 40.5% | 59.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 3 | 41.9% | 58.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 3 | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 3 | 30.9% | 69.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 4 | 37.4% | 62.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 4 | 8.5% | 91.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 3 | 38.3% | 61.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QTs | 4 | 31.9% | 68.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 4 | 71.1% | 28.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| TT | 6 | 77.2% | 22.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Methodology
Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.151% (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 Jd,8h,3s?
51.4% (TexasSolver output at the node where Small Blind checks); correspondingly Small Blind checks 25.5% there.
How are these numbers computed? Are they GTO?
Action frequencies come from a local offline TexasSolver run (400 iterations, exploitability 0.151% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 51.8%/48.2% 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, “Jd,8h,3s postflop strategy (J高干面(3bet底池), 3-bet pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/sb3bet-vs-btn-jd8h3s (2026).