Ts,9h,8c postflop strategy (中连彩虹湿面, single-raised pot)
On Ts,9h,8c (中连彩虹湿面), UTG (in position) c-bets 53.8% of the time when Big Blind (out of position) checks, while Big Blind checks 80.8%. Flop range equity: Big Blind 49.9% vs UTG 50.1% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 179,723 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.358%.
Range-level action frequencies
| Range / action | Check | Bet 18 (~33% pot) | Bet 41 (~75% pot) | Bet 975 (~1773% pot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Blind · OOP | 80.8% | 13.8% | 5.4% | 0.0% |
| UTG · IP (vs check) | 46.2% | 53.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Board reading
The T-9-8 rainbow run-out nearly flips the roles: UTG's big pairs shrink against dense draws while BB's JTs/T9s/98s/76s all connect. The high UTG check frequency here is a structural weakness of tight ranges.
Cross-check from our own engine
| Range | Flop range equity | Theoretical combos | On-board combos | Board-blocker loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Blind · OOP | 49.9% ±0.23pp | 184 | 161 | 23（12.5%） |
| UTG · IP | 50.1% ±0.23pp | 190 | 171 | 19（10.0%） |
Method: seeded Monte Carlo (179,723 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 | 91.1% | 5.5% | 3.4% | 0.0% |
| 33 | 6 | 93.8% | 5.1% | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| 44 | 6 | 97.0% | 3.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 55 | 6 | 99.2% | 0.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 66 | 6 | 89.6% | 10.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 77 | 6 | 91.5% | 7.7% | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| 88 | 3 | 72.2% | 21.9% | 5.9% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 3 | 74.1% | 16.0% | 9.9% | 0.0% |
| 54s | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 65s | 4 | 90.8% | 6.9% | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| 76s | 4 | 73.3% | 16.9% | 9.8% | 0.0% |
| 87s | 3 | 63.7% | 28.8% | 7.5% | 0.0% |
| 98s | 2 | 80.6% | 15.2% | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| A6s | 4 | 76.0% | 20.6% | 3.4% | 0.0% |
| A7s | 4 | 68.4% | 15.9% | 15.7% | 0.0% |
| A8s | 3 | 96.3% | 3.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A9s | 3 | 90.0% | 9.2% | 0.8% | 0.0% |
| AJo | 12 | 77.6% | 15.7% | 6.8% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 4 | 73.4% | 16.2% | 10.4% | 0.0% |
| AQo | 12 | 72.8% | 21.2% | 6.0% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 4 | 70.9% | 15.6% | 13.5% | 0.0% |
| ATo | 9 | 88.4% | 11.0% | 0.6% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 3 | 72.6% | 23.8% | 3.5% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 6 | 78.8% | 17.4% | 3.8% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 3 | 77.8% | 18.8% | 3.4% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 4 | 73.4% | 15.2% | 11.4% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 12 | 74.8% | 16.0% | 9.2% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 4 | 64.6% | 22.3% | 13.2% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 3 | 85.9% | 11.3% | 2.9% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 4 | 62.2% | 23.2% | 14.6% | 0.0% |
| QTs | 3 | 80.7% | 16.8% | 2.5% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 2 | 70.1% | 20.6% | 9.3% | 0.0% |
| TT | 3 | 69.5% | 19.9% | 10.6% | 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 | 40.1% | 59.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 33 | 6 | 48.9% | 51.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 44 | 6 | 80.7% | 19.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 55 | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 66 | 6 | 98.0% | 2.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 77 | 6 | 59.4% | 40.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 88 | 3 | 38.2% | 61.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 3 | 25.2% | 74.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 87s | 3 | 32.3% | 67.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 98s | 2 | 35.0% | 65.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A4s | 4 | 61.1% | 38.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A5s | 4 | 87.1% | 12.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A9s | 3 | 82.7% | 17.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AA | 6 | 59.4% | 40.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AJo | 12 | 44.0% | 56.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 4 | 17.1% | 82.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AKo | 12 | 10.1% | 89.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AKs | 4 | 78.8% | 21.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQo | 12 | 44.0% | 56.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 4 | 17.6% | 82.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 3 | 54.2% | 45.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 6 | 36.2% | 63.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 3 | 49.6% | 50.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 4 | 25.6% | 74.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KK | 6 | 35.7% | 64.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 12 | 44.9% | 55.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 4 | 24.3% | 75.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 3 | 53.3% | 46.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 4 | 10.0% | 90.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| 6 | 29.0% | 71.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |
| QTs | 3 | 61.8% | 38.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 2 | 24.8% | 75.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| TT | 3 | 18.2% | 81.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Methodology
Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.358% (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 Ts,9h,8c?
53.8% (TexasSolver output at the node where Big Blind checks); correspondingly Big Blind checks 80.8% there.
How are these numbers computed? Are they GTO?
Action frequencies come from a local offline TexasSolver run (400 iterations, exploitability 0.358% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 49.9%/50.1% 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, “Ts,9h,8c postflop strategy (中连彩虹湿面, single-raised pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/utg-vs-bb-srp-ts9h8c (2026).