Ac,Kd,7h postflop strategy (AK双高面, single-raised pot)
On Ac,Kd,7h (AK双高面), UTG (in position) c-bets 86.7% of the time when Big Blind (out of position) checks, while Big Blind checks 100.0%. Flop range equity: Big Blind 45.5% vs UTG 54.5% (our deterministic seeded Monte Carlo, 180,337 samples, 95% CI ±0.23pp). All frequencies below are TexasSolver offline outputs; exploitability 0.298%.
Range-level action frequencies
| Range / action | Check | Bet 18 (~33% pot) | Bet 41 (~75% pot) | Bet 975 (~1773% pot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Blind · OOP | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| UTG · IP (vs check) | 13.3% | 36.1% | 50.6% | 0.0% |
Board reading
The A-K double-broadway board is an extreme edge for UTG's tight range: most of BB's defending combos simply have nothing here. This is the closest thing to a pure range-bet scenario in the set.
Cross-check from our own engine
| Range | Flop range equity | Theoretical combos | On-board combos | Board-blocker loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Blind · OOP | 45.5% ±0.23pp | 184 | 156 | 28（15.2%） |
| UTG · IP | 54.5% ±0.23pp | 190 | 155 | 35（18.4%） |
Method: seeded Monte Carlo (180,337 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 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 33 | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 44 | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 55 | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 66 | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 77 | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 88 | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 54s | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 65s | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 76s | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 87s | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 98s | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A6s | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A7s | 2 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A8s | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| A9s | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AJo | 9 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQo | 9 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ATo | 9 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 9 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 3 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| QTs | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 4 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| TT | 6 | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 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 | 8.2% | 31.5% | 60.4% | 0.0% |
| 33 | 6 | 8.7% | 27.9% | 63.4% | 0.0% |
| 44 | 6 | 12.8% | 40.6% | 46.7% | 0.0% |
| 55 | 6 | 14.0% | 53.7% | 32.4% | 0.0% |
| 66 | 6 | 13.5% | 39.3% | 47.2% | 0.0% |
| 77 | 3 | 0.0% | 1.7% | 98.3% | 0.0% |
| 88 | 6 | 15.0% | 13.8% | 71.1% | 0.0% |
| 99 | 6 | 25.8% | 18.3% | 55.9% | 0.0% |
| 87s | 3 | 0.0% | 1.3% | 98.7% | 0.0% |
| 98s | 4 | 15.9% | 33.6% | 50.5% | 0.0% |
| A4s | 3 | 15.6% | 47.0% | 37.4% | 0.0% |
| A5s | 3 | 13.8% | 44.4% | 41.8% | 0.0% |
| A9s | 3 | 18.6% | 46.1% | 35.3% | 0.0% |
| AA | 3 | 11.2% | 73.0% | 15.8% | 0.0% |
| AJo | 9 | 13.7% | 29.1% | 57.2% | 0.0% |
| AJs | 3 | 8.3% | 23.8% | 68.0% | 0.0% |
| AKo | 7 | 0.1% | 21.3% | 78.5% | 0.0% |
| AKs | 2 | 0.0% | 20.4% | 79.6% | 0.0% |
| AQo | 9 | 4.1% | 17.3% | 78.5% | 0.0% |
| AQs | 3 | 3.3% | 20.9% | 75.8% | 0.0% |
| ATs | 3 | 27.9% | 52.1% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| JJ | 6 | 27.8% | 56.9% | 15.3% | 0.0% |
| JTs | 4 | 4.8% | 9.2% | 86.0% | 0.0% |
| KJs | 3 | 19.3% | 71.6% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| KK | 3 | 1.4% | 52.5% | 46.1% | 0.0% |
| KQo | 9 | 14.9% | 56.1% | 29.1% | 0.0% |
| KQs | 3 | 20.0% | 49.3% | 30.7% | 0.0% |
| KTs | 3 | 16.0% | 67.8% | 16.2% | 0.0% |
| QJs | 4 | 3.6% | 26.2% | 70.2% | 0.0% |
| 6 | 20.1% | 72.3% | 7.6% | 0.0% | |
| QTs | 4 | 1.1% | 12.9% | 86.0% | 0.0% |
| T9s | 4 | 18.7% | 40.7% | 40.6% | 0.0% |
| TT | 6 | 41.4% | 34.9% | 23.7% | 0.0% |
Methodology
Solver: TexasSolver (console); 400 iterations, accuracy target 0.2, exploitability 0.298% (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 Ac,Kd,7h?
86.7% (TexasSolver output at the node where Big Blind checks); correspondingly Big Blind checks 100.0% there.
How are these numbers computed? Are they GTO?
Action frequencies come from a local offline TexasSolver run (400 iterations, exploitability 0.298% — closer to 0 is closer to equilibrium); the range equities 45.5%/54.5% 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, “Ac,Kd,7h postflop strategy (AK双高面, single-raised pot)”, pailiku.com/strategy/postflop/utg-vs-bb-srp-ackd7h (2026).