6h,5c,4d postflop strategy (低连彩虹面(UTG脱靶), single-raised pot)
On 6h,5c,4d (低连彩虹面(UTG脱靶)), UTG (in position) c-bets 55.4% of the time when Big Blind (out of position) checks, while Big Blind checks 85.4%. Flop range equity: Big Blind 47.3% vs UTG 52.7% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 179,311 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.372%.
Range-level action frequencies
| Range / action | Check | Bet 18 (~33% pot) | Bet 41 (~75% pot) | Bet 975 (~1773% pot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Blind · OOP | 85.4% | 9.6% | 5.0% | 0.0% |
| UTG · IP (vs check) | 44.6% | 55.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Board reading
On 6-5-4 rainbow the UTG range whiffs almost entirely (overpairs aside) while BB covers two pairs and straights in volume. This page shows how the in-position side leans on overpairs and backdoor equity to sustain a limited betting range.
Cross-check from our own engine
| Range | Flop range equity | Theoretical combos | On-board combos | Board-blocker loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Blind · OOP | 47.3% ±0.23pp | 184 | 169 | 15（8.2%） |
| UTG · IP | 52.7% ±0.23pp | 190 | 179 | 11（5.8%） |
Method: seeded Monte Carlo (179,311 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 | 81.4% | 14.9% | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| 33 | 6 | 81.1% | 14.2% | 4.7% | 0.0% |
| 44 | 3 | 72.6% | 23.3% | 4.1% | 0.0% |
| 55 | 3 | 67.7% | 19.1% | 13.2% | 0.0% |
| 66 | 3 | 80.8% | 8.2% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| 77 | 6 | 82.1% | 11.9% | 6.0% | 0.0% |
| 88 | 6 | 82.3% | 12.6% | 5.1% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 6 | 86.6% | 10.3% | 3.1% | 0.0% |
| 54s | 2 | 86.5% | 12.4% | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| 65s | 2 | 78.5% | 16.2% | 5.4% | 0.0% |
| 76s | 3 | 76.3% | 15.1% | 8.6% | 0.0% |
| 87s | 4 | 70.1% | 15.0% | 14.9% | 0.0% |
| 98s | 4 | 75.3% | 11.9% | 12.7% | 0.0% |
| A6s | 3 | 77.3% | 21.1% | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| A7s | 4 | 73.6% | 15.1% | 11.3% | 0.0% |
| A8s | 4 | 78.1% | 11.9% | 9.9% | 0.0% |
| A9s | 4 | 70.9% | 12.5% | 16.6% | 0.0% |
| AJo | 12 | 95.6% | 2.5% | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 4 | 99.1% | 0.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQo | 12 | 95.9% | 3.9% | 0.3% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 4 | 96.5% | 3.4% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| ATo | 12 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 4 | 74.2% | 17.2% | 8.5% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 6 | 86.7% | 11.1% | 2.1% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 4 | 83.1% | 12.4% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 4 | 74.0% | 15.9% | 10.1% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 12 | 99.5% | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 4 | 80.6% | 10.4% | 9.0% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 4 | 77.8% | 12.8% | 9.5% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 4 | 77.8% | 13.1% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| QTs | 4 | 87.5% | 7.3% | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 4 | 74.1% | 14.0% | 11.9% | 0.0% |
| TT | 6 | 85.3% | 13.3% | 1.4% | 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 | 61.9% | 38.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 33 | 6 | 47.0% | 53.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 44 | 3 | 38.8% | 61.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 55 | 3 | 18.5% | 81.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 66 | 3 | 2.7% | 97.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| 77 | 6 | 43.4% | 56.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 88 | 6 | 32.9% | 67.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 6 | 35.6% | 64.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 87s | 4 | 4.0% | 95.9% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| 98s | 4 | 30.2% | 69.7% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| A4s | 3 | 29.8% | 70.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A5s | 3 | 26.0% | 74.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A9s | 4 | 37.7% | 62.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AA | 6 | 56.4% | 43.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AJo | 12 | 42.8% | 57.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 4 | 89.8% | 10.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AKo | 12 | 37.1% | 62.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AKs | 4 | 78.4% | 21.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQo | 12 | 80.1% | 19.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 4 | 84.8% | 15.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 4 | 72.2% | 27.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 6 | 41.6% | 58.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 4 | 21.5% | 78.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 4 | 34.4% | 65.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KK | 6 | 44.3% | 55.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 12 | 17.9% | 82.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 4 | 54.1% | 45.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 4 | 60.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 4 | 37.5% | 62.5% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| 6 | 44.0% | 55.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| QTs | 4 | 51.0% | 49.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 4 | 39.3% | 60.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| TT | 6 | 47.9% | 52.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Methodology
Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.372% (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 6h,5c,4d?
55.4% (TexasSolver output at the node where Big Blind checks); correspondingly Big Blind checks 85.4% there.
How are these numbers computed? Are they GTO?
Action frequencies come from a local offline TexasSolver run (400 iterations, exploitability 0.372% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 47.3%/52.7% 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, “6h,5c,4d postflop strategy (低连彩虹面(UTG脱靶), single-raised pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/utg-vs-bb-srp-6h5c4d (2026).