9s,8s,4d postflop strategy (中连两色(3bet底池), 3-bet pot)

On 9s,8s,4d (中连两色(3bet底池)), Button (in position) c-bets 56.6% of the time when Big Blind (out of position) checks, while Big Blind checks 23.9%. Flop range equity: Big Blind 52.3% vs Button 47.7% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 178,495 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.184%.

Range-level action frequencies

Range-level frequency per action (pot 225; bet sizes annotated as % of pot)
Range / action	Check	Bet 74 (~33% pot)	Bet 169 (~75% pot)	Bet 890 (~396% pot)
Big Blind · OOP	23.9%	2.7%	73.4%	0.0%
Button · IP (vs check)	43.4%	56.6%	0.0%	0.0%

Board reading

A 3-bet pot on 9-8-4 two-tone flips the pressure: the 3-bettor's big pairs face dense 98s/T9s/87s interaction from BTN's calling range. Watch OOP's rising check frequency and IP's stab space.

Cross-check from our own engine

Range-vs-range equity and combo coverage (equity computed independently of the solver)
Range	Flop range equity	Theoretical combos	On-board combos	Board-blocker loss
Big Blind · OOP	52.3% ±0.23pp	100	96	4（4.0%）
Button · IP	47.7% ±0.23pp	116	105	11（9.5%）

Method: seeded Monte Carlo (178,495 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

Big Blind (OOP) action frequency per hand class
Hand class	Combos	Check	Bet 74 (~33% pot)	Bet 169 (~75% pot)	Bet 890 (~396% pot)
99	3	33.4%	6.2%	60.4%	0.0%
65s	4	10.9%	3.8%	85.3%	0.0%
76s	4	16.7%	7.0%	76.3%	0.0%
A2s	4	51.0%	0.0%	49.0%	0.0%
A3s	4	50.9%	0.0%	49.1%	0.0%
A4s	3	10.6%	4.9%	84.5%	0.0%
A5s	4	53.1%	0.0%	46.9%	0.0%
AA	6	15.8%	4.2%	80.0%	0.0%
AJs	4	9.0%	5.2%	85.8%	0.0%
AKo	12	22.5%	5.2%	72.3%	0.0%
AKs	4	26.1%	1.7%	72.2%	0.0%
AQo	12	45.0%	1.9%	53.0%	0.0%
AQs	4	47.4%	1.3%	51.3%	0.0%
JJ	6	2.3%	0.0%	97.7%	0.0%
KK	6	13.2%	2.6%	84.3%	0.0%
KQs	4	3.8%	2.4%	93.8%	0.0%
QQ	6	7.3%	0.7%	92.0%	0.0%
TT	6	8.3%	1.9%	89.8%	0.0%

Button (IP, vs check) frequency by class

Button (IP) action frequency per hand class
Hand class	Combos	Check	Bet 74 (~33% pot)	Bet 169 (~75% pot)	Bet 890 (~396% pot)
55	6	55.8%	44.2%	0.0%	0.0%
66	6	65.3%	34.7%	0.0%	0.0%
77	6	33.3%	66.7%	0.0%	0.0%
88	3	24.7%	75.3%	0.0%	0.0%
99	3	11.9%	88.1%	0.0%	0.0%
54s	3	89.0%	11.0%	0.0%	0.0%
65s	4	54.9%	45.1%	0.0%	0.0%
76s	4	47.3%	52.6%	0.0%	0.0%
87s	3	65.6%	34.4%	0.0%	0.0%
98s	3	1.0%	99.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A9s	3	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
AJs	4	5.7%	94.3%	0.0%	0.0%
AKs	4	95.0%	5.1%	0.0%	0.0%
AQo	12	49.0%	51.0%	0.0%	0.0%
AQs	4	75.0%	25.0%	0.0%	0.0%
ATs	4	0.0%	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%
JTs	4	58.6%	41.4%	0.0%	0.0%
KJs	4	7.1%	92.9%	0.0%	0.0%
KQs	4	8.3%	91.7%	0.0%	0.0%
KTs	4	3.1%	96.9%	0.0%	0.0%
QJs	4	41.9%	58.1%	0.0%	0.0%
QTs	4	78.0%	22.0%	0.0%	0.0%
T9s	3	21.5%	78.5%	0.0%	0.0%
TT	6	32.8%	67.2%	0.0%	0.0%

Methodology

Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.184% (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.

Sitewide methodology →

FAQ

What is Button's c-bet frequency on 9s,8s,4d?

56.6% (TexasSolver output at the node where Big Blind checks); correspondingly Big Blind checks 23.9% there.

How are these numbers computed? Are they GTO?

Action frequencies come from a local offline TexasSolver run (400 iterations, exploitability 0.184% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 52.3%/47.7% are independently cross-checked by our own deterministic engine. A solve is an approximate equilibrium, not a unique answer.

Educational use; not betting advice.

Cite this page: Pailiku, “9s,8s,4d postflop strategy (中连两色(3bet底池), 3-bet pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/bb3bet-vs-btn-9s8s4d (2026).