Choosing Between Folding, Calling and 4-Betting

Consider a 4-bet only after identifying the format, positions and effective stack, estimating your opponent’s 3-bet range and responses, and planning what to do against a call or shove. A 4-bet is the second re-raise, following the opening raise and a 3-bet. A strong hand or a useful blocker does not make it automatic: calling or folding may be better.

This guide uses a hypothetical six-handed no-limit Hold’em cash game with no ante. It checks the price of the decision and the stack left behind—not a universal range chart or a recommended 4-bet frequency.

Who acts, and how large can the raise be?

The cutoff (CO) must respond to the button’s (BTN) 3-bet while out of position. A 4-bet to 21bb is legal in this example, but a legal size is not necessarily a strategically sound one.

All amounts are in big blinds, abbreviated bb. The small blind (SB) is 0.5bb and the big blind (BB) is 1bb. The preflop action is:

1. CO opens to 2.5bb.
2. BTN 3-bets to 8bb.
3. Both blinds fold.
4. CO chooses between folding, calling and 4-betting.

“To 21bb” means CO’s total contribution, not another 21bb on top of the opening raise.

The raise from 2.5bb to 8bb adds 5.5bb, so the minimum next raise is to 13.5bb. The illustrative 21bb raise exceeds that minimum. In no-limit play, the maximum is limited by the chips available. See the PokerStars no-limit Hold’em rules for raise rules, and check the rules of your own room.

We first give both players 100bb before the hand. We then change their starting stacks to 40bb while retaining the same illustrative 21bb raise. That comparison is not a recommended 40bb sizing.

Which opponent ranges matter?

You need separate estimates of BTN’s entire 3-bet range, 4-bet calling range and 5-bet jam range. They are not interchangeable.

The 3-bet range describes the hands BTN raises to 8bb. After your 4-bet, some of those hands may fold, some may call and some may shove. Being ahead of the entire 3-bet range does not necessarily mean being ahead of the range that continues. This distinction is central to the PokerStars Learn lesson on facing 3-bets.

Record the assumptions separately:

When evidence is limited, compare several explicitly hypothetical responses rather than treating one estimate as certain.

A blocker does not fill that evidence gap. For example, the ace in A5s removes some available opponent combos—specific two-card combinations—but does not prove that BTN will fold often. Its relevance depends on which hands BTN actually 3-bets and how those hands respond.

For the same reason, A5s, QQ and AK are not automatic 4-bets. A hand name cannot replace an assessment of position, stack depth and opponent responses.

What should you decide before raising?

Plan for both a call and a shove, then compare the 4-bet with folding and calling. This makes the assumptions behind the raise explicit.

Use this decision ledger:

1. Fix the conditions. Identify the format, antes, positions and effective stack. Here, the effective stack is the smaller of the two players’ stacks before the hand; it limits what they can win from each other.
2. State the total raise size. Our example uses 21bb. Calculate the additional amount separately from the 2.5bb already invested.
3. Separate the ranges and responses. Do not substitute the entire 3-bet range for the calling or shove range.
4. Plan against continued action. After a call, assess the pot and remaining stack. Against a shove, assess the call price and equity against the assumed 5-bet jam range.
5. Compare all three choices. Folding requires no further investment. Calling keeps you in the hand without making an additional raise. A 4-bet changes both the pot and BTN’s available responses.

This checklist does not solve the strategy. It shows which parts of your decision rest on arithmetic and which depend on uncertain reads.

What does the arithmetic show at 100bb?

A 4-bet to 21bb adds 18.5bb to a 12bb pot. If BTN calls, the pot becomes 43.5bb, with 79bb behind each player. These calculations assume no rake and no other players entering the hand.

The pot when CO faces the decision is:

2.5 + 8 + 0.5 + 1 = 12bb

CO’s opening 2.5bb is already in the pot. The additional investment is:

21 − 2.5 = 18.5bb

After the raise, the pot is 30.5bb. If BTN folds, the incremental gain relative to folding at this decision point is 12bb: CO receives the old pot along with the newly added 18.5bb. That is not the net profit measured from the start of the hand.

What is the simplified bluff fold threshold?

The threshold is 60.66%, but only for a toy model in which the hand has zero equity and always loses the additional 18.5bb when called, with no further betting.

If f is BTN’s fold frequency, the model is:

f × 12 − (1 − f) × 18.5

Its break-even fold threshold is:

18.5 / (18.5 + 12) = 60.66%

The percentage is rounded to two decimal places. This is not a universal fold-frequency requirement or the full expected value (EV) of a 4-bet. Real hands can retain equity when called, later betting can change the result, and rake can matter.

Most importantly, the calculation does not establish how often BTN actually folds. That requires a separate estimate of the opponent’s response.

What remains after BTN calls?

BTN calls another 13bb, producing a 43.5bb flop pot and leaving both players with 79bb.

21 + 21 + 0.5 + 1 = 43.5bb

100 − 21 = 79bb

The stack-to-pot ratio (SPR) is the remaining effective stack divided by the pot:

79 / 43.5 = 1.82

SPR is rounded to two decimal places. It describes the relationship between the remaining chips and the pot, not which hands should continue.

Hypothetical 100bb CO A♠5♠ decision after opening to 2.5bb and facing BTN’s 8bb 3-bet: fold, call or 4-bet to 21bb; only after BTN calls the 4-bet does the pot reach 43.5bb with 79bb behind each player

Original hypothetical diagram, not a poker-table screenshot. With 0.5/1bb blinds folded, no ante and no rake, CO holds A♠5♠—an example, not an advised 4-bet. The decision pot is 12bb and the extra raise costs 18.5bb. Only after BTN calls the 4-bet is the pot 43.5bb with 79bb behind each player.

What changes at a 40bb effective stack?

The same illustrative raise to 21bb leaves only 19bb behind and creates an SPR of 0.44 if called. We retain 21bb solely to show the difference; it is not a recommended size at 40bb.

At 40bb, 21 / 40 = 52.5% of the effective stack has been invested. After a call, 19 / 43.5 = 0.44, rounded to two decimal places.

The same pot size conceals very different remaining stacks. You cannot simply transfer a 100bb size and range to 40bb because the positions and initial 3-bet are unchanged. The GTO Wizard stack study illustrates how ranges depend on stack depth, rather than providing a universal raising frequency.

A 4-bet all-in is another legal branch at 40bb, but that does not make it automatically correct. It requires its own assumptions about BTN’s response.

What if BTN shoves at 100bb?

After CO 4-bets to 21bb, calling BTN’s jam to 100bb costs another 79bb. With guaranteed showdown and no rake, the simplified equity threshold for that call is 39.21%.

The final pot after CO calls is:

100 + 100 + 1.5 = 201.5bb

The additional call divided by that final pot is:

79 / 201.5 = 39.21%

The percentage is rounded to two decimal places. With no further betting possible, this is the threshold for this particular call under the stated assumptions—not proof that the preceding 4-bet was correct.

Compare your hand with BTN’s 5-bet jam range, not the entire 3-bet range. Equity is your share of the pot at showdown, including ties. Even an accurate equity calculation against the wrong range cannot reliably answer the decision.

How can you check a hypothetical matchup in ToolsGambling?

Use the range builder to inspect a selected matchup and its showdown equity, not to obtain a 4-bet recommendation. For this exercise, use the A5s hand class represented by CO’s hypothetical A♠5♠.

1. Enter A5s for Hero in the Range notation textarea.
2. Click Apply to grid.

ToolsGambling range builder with A5s entered in Hero’s Range notation textarea and the Apply to grid button visible

Enter A5s in Hero’s Range notation field, then click Apply to grid. This owned-site screenshot shows the hypothetical input, not an observed poker hand.

3. In Opponent’s separate 13×13 matrix, select AA, KK, AKs, AKo. There is no opponent notation textarea.
4. Leave the board empty.
5. Click Run equity.

ToolsGambling equity result for Hero A5s against opponent AA, KK, AKs and AKo, showing around 29% Hero equity over 100,000 Monte Carlo runouts

Owned-site result captured on October 15, 2026: around 29% Hero showdown equity across 100,000 Monte Carlo runouts against the hypothetical AA, KK, AKs, AKo range. Results vary per simulation; this is not fold frequency, 4-bet EV or a solver recommendation.

Decision for this hypothetical jam: if AA, KK, AKs and AKo are exactly the range with which BTN jams over our 4-bet, A5s has about 29% equity against the 39.21% call threshold. Under those assumptions, fold to the jam. The gap is large enough that ordinary Monte Carlo variation will not reverse the conclusion. This does not judge the 4-bet already made: its EV also depends on how often BTN folds or calls and on the result of each branch; rake is excluded here.

This opponent range is an assumption for the exercise, not an established BTN range. To explore a different response, change the opponent selections in the matrix and run the calculation again. Keep any assumed 3-bet range, 4-bet calling range and 5-bet jam range conceptually separate.

For help reading hand notation and the matrix, use the preflop chart guide. It is a notation and chart-literacy resource, not an alternative 4-bet chart.

The range builder does not accept effective stack, fold-to-4-bet frequency or future betting. Its raw equity—the showdown share against the selected range—is not the EV of raising. When stacks remain after a call, equity realization also matters: how much of that equity you can convert into results through subsequent play.

If changing the assumed continuing range materially changes the equity, revisit the assumption. One simulated percentage cannot choose between folding, calling and 4-betting.

Where does this example stop applying?

This example applies only to the stated cash-game conditions. Tournament antes, payout considerations and deeper stacks require different assumptions.

The GTO Wizard analysis of out-of-position 4-betting in deep-stacked cash games illustrates this dependence on depth. Its frequencies should not be transplanted into this hypothetical hand. The linked primary references were viewed on October 15, 2026.

Before raising, build a coherent plan for folds, calls and jams, including your response to each. The numbers check the cost of that plan; the real 4-bet decision still needs opponent responses, range equity, future play, rake and position.