7d,7c,2s postflop strategy (成对低面, single-raised pot)

On 7d,7c,2s (成对低面), Button (in position) c-bets 60.2% of the time when Big Blind (out of position) checks, while Big Blind checks 94.8%. Flop range equity: Big Blind 47.0% vs Button 53.0% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 180,647 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.425%.

Range-level action frequencies

Range-level frequency per action (pot 55; bet sizes annotated as % of pot)
Range / action	Check	Bet 18 (~33% pot)	Bet 41 (~75% pot)	Bet 975 (~1773% pot)
Big Blind · OOP	94.8%	0.1%	5.1%	0.0%
Button · IP (vs check)	39.8%	50.9%	9.3%	0.0%

Board reading

Neither range hits a paired low board often, but BTN's overpairs and high-card showdown value dominate. Note the small-size high-frequency structure: when nobody connects, the side with the overall equity lead pressures cheaply.

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	47.0% ±0.23pp	318	292	26（8.2%）
Button · IP	53.0% ±0.23pp	582	543	39（6.7%）

Method: seeded Monte Carlo (180,647 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 18 (~33% pot)	Bet 41 (~75% pot)	Bet 975 (~1773% pot)
22	3	89.5%	0.2%	10.3%	0.0%
33	6	93.0%	0.1%	6.8%	0.0%
44	6	92.7%	0.1%	7.2%	0.0%
55	6	94.6%	0.1%	5.3%	0.0%
66	6	92.1%	0.1%	7.8%	0.0%
77	1	77.8%	0.0%	22.1%	0.0%
88	6	95.1%	0.1%	4.9%	0.0%
43s	4	95.6%	0.0%	4.3%	0.0%
53s	4	92.0%	0.1%	7.9%	0.0%
54s	4	86.7%	0.1%	13.2%	0.0%
64s	4	91.6%	0.1%	8.3%	0.0%
75s	2	85.3%	0.1%	14.6%	0.0%
86s	4	88.6%	0.1%	11.3%	0.0%
87s	2	89.5%	0.1%	10.4%	0.0%
97s	2	84.1%	0.1%	15.8%	0.0%
98o	12	96.2%	0.0%	3.8%	0.0%
98s	4	85.3%	0.1%	14.6%	0.0%
A6s	4	98.7%	0.0%	1.2%	0.0%
A7o	6	94.1%	0.1%	5.8%	0.0%
A7s	2	92.5%	0.2%	7.4%	0.0%
A8o	12	97.2%	0.1%	2.7%	0.0%
A8s	4	97.5%	0.1%	2.5%	0.0%
A9o	12	99.2%	0.0%	0.8%	0.0%
A9s	4	95.6%	0.1%	4.3%	0.0%
AJo	12	94.5%	0.1%	5.4%	0.0%
ATo	12	95.7%	0.1%	4.2%	0.0%
ATs	4	92.7%	0.1%	7.2%	0.0%
J8s	4	90.3%	0.1%	9.6%	0.0%
J9s	4	89.6%	0.1%	10.3%	0.0%
JTo	12	98.9%	0.0%	1.1%	0.0%
JTs	4	87.8%	0.1%	12.1%	0.0%
K6s	4	88.3%	0.1%	11.6%	0.0%
K7s	2	90.4%	0.2%	9.4%	0.0%
K8s	4	91.6%	0.0%	8.3%	0.0%
K9s	4	97.9%	0.0%	2.1%	0.0%
KJo	12	98.3%	0.0%	1.7%	0.0%
KJs	4	97.0%	0.1%	2.9%	0.0%
KQo	12	97.0%	0.1%	2.9%	0.0%
KTo	12	97.6%	0.1%	2.4%	0.0%
KTs	4	99.3%	0.0%	0.7%	0.0%
Q8s	4	90.3%	0.1%	9.6%	0.0%
Q9s	4	93.1%	0.1%	6.8%	0.0%
QJo	12	99.3%	0.0%	0.7%	0.0%
QJs	4	95.5%	0.1%	4.4%	0.0%
QTo	12	99.7%	0.0%	0.3%	0.0%
QTs	4	92.3%	0.0%	7.7%	0.0%
T7s	2	87.8%	0.1%	12.1%	0.0%
T8s	4	90.7%	0.1%	9.3%	0.0%
T9o	12	98.6%	0.0%	1.4%	0.0%
T9s	4	83.1%	0.2%	16.6%	0.0%

Button (IP, vs check) frequency by class

Button (IP) action frequency per hand class
Hand class	Combos	Check	Bet 18 (~33% pot)	Bet 41 (~75% pot)	Bet 975 (~1773% pot)
22	3	0.0%	71.0%	29.0%	0.0%
33	6	44.5%	48.9%	6.6%	0.0%
44	6	36.3%	55.2%	8.5%	0.0%
55	6	29.0%	59.4%	11.6%	0.0%
66	6	20.2%	68.0%	11.8%	0.0%
77	1	49.3%	50.7%	0.0%	0.0%
88	6	13.5%	65.2%	21.3%	0.0%
99	6	10.9%	71.7%	17.4%	0.0%
43s	4	35.3%	54.0%	10.7%	0.0%
53s	4	39.6%	41.6%	18.9%	0.0%
54s	4	49.1%	46.5%	4.4%	0.0%
64s	4	42.8%	41.4%	15.8%	0.0%
65s	4	42.4%	52.2%	5.5%	0.0%
74s	2	9.5%	77.8%	12.7%	0.0%
75s	2	20.7%	71.6%	7.8%	0.0%
76s	2	19.8%	73.2%	7.0%	0.0%
85s	4	36.0%	46.6%	17.4%	0.0%
86s	4	35.0%	54.2%	10.8%	0.0%
87s	2	12.6%	71.5%	15.9%	0.0%
96s	4	59.3%	37.5%	3.3%	0.0%
97s	2	13.1%	83.3%	3.6%	0.0%
98o	12	35.9%	52.8%	11.3%	0.0%
98s	4	2.6%	78.0%	19.3%	0.0%
A2o	9	32.7%	57.1%	10.3%	0.0%
A2s	3	8.3%	75.3%	16.5%	0.0%
A3o	12	41.0%	50.7%	8.3%	0.0%
A3s	4	50.0%	45.6%	4.4%	0.0%
A4o	12	46.1%	49.3%	4.6%	0.0%
A4s	4	33.3%	62.1%	4.5%	0.0%
A5o	12	46.0%	46.7%	7.3%	0.0%
A5s	4	15.4%	78.9%	5.7%	0.0%
A6o	12	23.7%	69.9%	6.3%	0.0%
A6s	4	60.4%	38.4%	1.2%	0.0%
A7o	6	8.8%	66.2%	25.0%	0.0%
A7s	2	8.2%	73.8%	18.0%	0.0%
A8o	12	64.1%	35.4%	0.5%	0.0%
A8s	4	27.6%	70.8%	1.6%	0.0%
A9o	12	61.0%	38.9%	0.1%	0.0%
A9s	4	14.5%	83.5%	2.0%	0.0%
AA	6	44.0%	56.0%	0.0%	0.0%
AJo	12	58.1%	38.8%	3.1%	0.0%
AJs	4	21.1%	70.9%	8.0%	0.0%
AKo	12	5.9%	78.0%	16.1%	0.0%
AKs	4	0.2%	91.2%	8.6%	0.0%
AQo	12	41.8%	50.8%	7.5%	0.0%
AQs	4	7.9%	75.0%	17.1%	0.0%
ATo	12	82.1%	17.0%	0.9%	0.0%
ATs	4	29.0%	67.0%	4.0%	0.0%
J6s	4	37.0%	35.9%	27.2%	0.0%
J7s	2	26.2%	60.2%	13.6%	0.0%
J8s	4	46.2%	47.1%	6.7%	0.0%
J9o	12	21.8%	61.9%	16.3%	0.0%
J9s	4	31.4%	52.7%	15.9%	0.0%
JJ	6	30.3%	61.7%	8.1%	0.0%
JTo	12	35.1%	49.4%	15.5%	0.0%
JTs	4	16.5%	72.5%	11.0%	0.0%
K2s	3	7.1%	85.7%	7.2%	0.0%
K3s	4	58.5%	34.9%	6.7%	0.0%
K4s	4	39.9%	54.0%	6.1%	0.0%
K5s	4	16.8%	67.0%	16.2%	0.0%
K6s	4	19.6%	64.6%	15.8%	0.0%
K7s	2	5.3%	51.4%	43.2%	0.0%
K8o	12	22.8%	55.4%	21.9%	0.0%
K8s	4	70.1%	26.0%	3.9%	0.0%
K9o	12	55.9%	39.8%	4.4%	0.0%
K9s	4	71.7%	19.5%	8.8%	0.0%
KJo	12	86.3%	13.7%	0.0%	0.0%
KJs	4	48.7%	51.3%	0.0%	0.0%
KK	6	48.8%	49.3%	1.8%	0.0%
KQo	12	81.8%	18.1%	0.0%	0.0%
KQs	4	0.0%	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%
KTo	12	97.0%	2.5%	0.5%	0.0%
KTs	4	79.6%	19.7%	0.7%	0.0%
Q4s	4	34.4%	58.4%	7.2%	0.0%
Q5s	4	17.4%	71.0%	11.6%	0.0%
Q6s	4	27.5%	64.3%	8.3%	0.0%
Q7s	2	0.3%	72.7%	26.9%	0.0%
Q8s	4	44.1%	43.7%	12.2%	0.0%
Q9o	12	35.3%	43.3%	21.4%	0.0%
Q9s	4	55.6%	34.3%	10.2%	0.0%
QJo	12	52.9%	45.0%	2.1%	0.0%
QJs	4	85.9%	9.2%	4.9%	0.0%
QQ	6	25.5%	67.4%	7.1%	0.0%
QTo	12	32.0%	49.7%	18.3%	0.0%
QTs	4	48.5%	45.3%	6.2%	0.0%
T6s	4	19.5%	62.1%	18.4%	0.0%
T7s	2	14.0%	74.8%	11.3%	0.0%
T8s	4	56.6%	35.0%	8.4%	0.0%
T9o	12	45.5%	45.2%	9.3%	0.0%
T9s	4	0.2%	74.7%	25.2%	0.0%
TT	6	20.2%	69.4%	10.4%	0.0%

Methodology

Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.425% (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 7d,7c,2s?

60.2% (TexasSolver output at the node where Big Blind checks); correspondingly Big Blind checks 94.8% there.

How are these numbers computed? Are they GTO?

Action frequencies come from a local offline TexasSolver run (400 iterations, exploitability 0.425% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 47.0%/53.0% 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, “7d,7c,2s postflop strategy (成对低面, single-raised pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/btn-vs-bb-srp-7d7c2s (2026).