{"id":2085,"date":"2010-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/1679\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T09:35:48","modified_gmt":"2026-08-12T09:35:48","slug":"1679","status":"publish","type":"strategy","link":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/","title":{"rendered":"4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory"},"content":{"rendered":"

4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
» COLUMN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>

4-Bet Bluff<\/strong> (1) - Theory<\/h1>

by MiiWiin<\/i><\/p>

Today you'll get to know a strong No Limit Hold'em weapon – the 4-bet bluff. It's a very difficult subject to deal with as there are a lot of different factors involved. Nonetheless, you can learn some basics here and find out when 4-bet bluffs are best with the help of numerous examples.<\/p>

This is the first of five columns on this complex subject. The theory section is covered in three of the columns. The other two parts are filled with examples some of which would be found in position, others out of position.<\/p>

The theory part deals with the following factors (the bold points are covered in part 1):<\/p>

    \n
  • Why 4-bet at all?<\/b><\/li>\n
  • Balancing<\/b><\/li>\n
  • Raise sizes<\/b><\/li>\n
  • Your equity<\/b><\/li>\n
  • Bluff \/ value hands<\/b><\/li>\n
  • Important opponents' stats<\/li>\n
  • Ideal opponents<\/li>\n
  • Potential hands<\/li>\n
  • Villains 3-bet range and the card removal effect<\/li>\n
  • General bluff frequencies<\/li>\n
  • Situation-specific bluff frequencies (table image, game flow, history)<\/li>\n
  • Your position<\/li>\n
  • What do you do after a call?<\/li>\n
  • Alternatives<\/li>\n
  • Tilt resistance<\/li>\n<\/ul>

    Why (bluff) 4-bet at all?<\/h1>

    The first question that should flash into your mind is \"why should I bluff 4-bet at all?\"<\/i><\/p>

    This question is very justified. Many players avoid moves like this altogether and don't do badly at all. As is so often the case in poker, the rule also applies here: as long as you use these plays correctly, you can play them with positive expected value (+EV). However, if you make mistakes, they'll be expensive ones. <\/p>

    This is a topic where you can make a lot of expensive mistakes. That's why most players won't be losing players, just because they don't 4-bet bluff.<\/p>

    The next question is \"at what limit do they start getting interesting?\"<\/em><\/p>

    This is also difficult to answer. It makes sense from the point when you can estimate whether you should play a 4-bet bluff for +EV. If this is the case, you can include them in your play, regardless of the limit.<\/p>

    However, the recommendation is to play the move sparingly at the lower limits (up to NL50 SH). As a beginner in SH you'll recognise that there are many elements which contribute to a good overall game. Therefore it's not really necessary to get yourself into a tight spot unnecessarily with such moves. <\/p>

    After a certain point, all your opponents will start playing against you more aggressively. So it should be clear that a 4-bet bluff is needed if you are regularly confronted with 3-bets. At this point you need to start thinking about your play, so you don't give up too many hands.<\/p>

    If you almost always fold hands in these cases, there's a danger you'll become an easy target for aggressive players. You 4-bet with AA\/KK, in general with AK and QQ, however, isn't it possible that your opponents observe this and know?<\/p>

    The logical result is that not only will you have to give up a large number of hands, but you won't get a payout for your strong hands either. If thinking players recognise that you only 4-bet strong hands for value, then they can't really make many mistakes against you. However, you live off your opponents mistakes.<\/p>

    Balancing<\/h1>

    This brings us to balancing. No matter what action you take at the poker table, you should never make it obvious what you're holding. You open-raise AA as well as 45s, you contibet strong hands, bluffs, semi-bluffs and can balance your game with many other things, for example 3-bets.<\/p>

    Why not with 4-bets as well? As described in the section above, 4-bets are primarily aimed at:<\/p>

      \n
    • Attacking notorious 3-betters so they steal less against you.<\/li>\n
    • Making it harder for your opponents to read you with a larger 4-bet range. <\/li>\n
    • Getting less credit with strong hands and getting a better payout.<\/li>\n
    • This does not only ensure that you will regularly get paid out with AA\/KK, but also that you can go broke with a clear conscience with AK\/QQ. <\/li>\n<\/ul>

      Bluff frequencies are decisive here, as well as appropriate hands (see part 2).<\/p>

      Raise sizes<\/h1>

      Bet or raise sizes is a very important aspect here. How big should your 4-bet (bluff) be?<\/p>

      You need to be clear about one thing; a 4-bet bluff should be as big as a 4-bet for value. This is for balancing and it's essential.<\/p>

      Nonetheless, your 4-bet should achieve fold equity and not be called too lightly. A min-4-bet will still give the opponent odds better than 3:1. Too many players think it's necessary here to make a (usually wrong) call. Don't give your opponent this option.<\/p>

      The ideal 4-bet size here is approx. 2.5 times the 3-bet.<\/p>

      EXAMPLE 1<\/div>

      Preflop:<\/b> Hero is CO with XX
      Hero bets 4BB<\/font>, BU raises to 12BB<\/font>, Hero raises to 30BB <\/font><\/p>

      In this example, Hero 4-bets 2.5 times the 3-bet. It's the perfect raise size, the question is, why?<\/p>

      With the bet or raise size you basically want to achieve a lot of goals:<\/p>

        \n
      • Extract value from weaker hands <\/li>\n
      • Generate fold equity against better hands<\/li>\n
      • Protect stronger hands<\/li>\n<\/ul>

        In the case of a 2.5 times bigger 4-bet, you give the opponent odds of 46:18, or roughly 2.5:1. These odds are sufficient.<\/p>

        For this, compare the idealistic relationship of the continuation bet, which is realised as a 2\/3 pot size bet, for the exact reasons mentioned above (max. value, max. fold equity, good protection). A 2\/3 pot size continuation bet also gives your opponent odds of 2.5:1.<\/p>

        This leaves the following question: how often does a 4-bet need to be successful? If it's based solely on fold equity, it can be calculated like this:<\/p>

        You invest a further $26 to win $16. So out of 46 instances your opponent will have to fold 30 times, or roughly 62%.<\/p>

        However, it's more than that. A raise size of 2.5 times may have many advantages, but it's also fundamentally important for correct play.<\/p>

        As is so often the case, everything is a question of equity.<\/p>

        Your equity<\/h1>

        Equity is the deciding factor in poker, even if lots of players don't take it to task.<\/p>

        Having a basic knowledge of your equity is the deciding factor for determining when you can use a hand as a 4-bet bluff, when you can 4-bet for value or when you have wrongly committed yourself with a hand, .<\/p>

        At the very least when you intend to integrate 4-bet bluffs into your repertoire, you'll need to familarise yourself with these things.<\/p>

        You don't need a lot for this either, just your required equity as well as the Equilator.<\/p>

        REQUIRED EQUITY<\/div>

        Let's stick with the example above:<\/p>

        100BB Stacks<\/b><\/p>

        Preflop:<\/b> Hero is CO with XX
        Hero raises 4BB<\/font>, BU raises to 12BB<\/font>, Hero raises to 30BB<\/font>, Villain pushes all-in <\/font><\/p>

        As a result, you need to invest 70BB to stay in a 200BB pot. This requires exactly 35% equity (70\/200).<\/p>

        One problem is clear: if you have 35% equity against the range you've given Villain, you can no longer fold the bluff you originally planned.<\/p>

        Here are a few more examples based on this raise size. However, before that here are another couple of bet and raise sizes so you can see how the required equity can change:<\/p>

          \n
        • Hero bets 3.5BB<\/font>, BU raises to 10BB<\/font>, Hero raises to 25BB<\/font>, Villain pushes all-in<\/font>=> 75\/200 => 37.5% required equity<\/li>\n
        • Hero bets 3BB<\/font>, BU raises to 9BB<\/font>, Hero raises to 23BB<\/font>, Villain pushes all-in<\/font>=> 77\/200 => 38.5% required equity <\/li>\n
        • Hero bets 2.5BB<\/font>, BU raises to 7BB<\/font>, Hero raises to 18BB<\/font>, Villain pushes all-in<\/font> => 82\/200 => 41% required equity <\/li>\n<\/ul>
          VILLAIN'S RANGE:<\/div>

          Give Villain a medium tight broke range: JJ+\/AKo\/s<\/p>

          Now divide your hand into six categories:<\/p>

            \n
          • High pair: KK<\/li>\n
          • High cards: AKo<\/li>\n
          • Suited connectors: 67s<\/li>\n
          • Low pocket pairs: 55<\/li>\n
          • High card hands with card removal effect: A2s<\/li>\n
          • Crap: J3o<\/li>\n<\/ul>

            Before we get to the analysis you should consider a couple of things. If you've 4-bet all of these hands and are confronted with the situation above (Villain pushes), what hands do you need to call, from an equity point of view, against the range we have assumed?<\/p>

            High pair: KK<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
            Equity analysis<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Board<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
             <\/td>\nEquity<\/b><\/td>\nWin<\/b> <\/b><\/td>\nSplit<\/b><\/td>\nLoss<\/b><\/td>\nHand<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 1<\/td>\n37.4%<\/td>\n35.35%<\/td>\n4.1%<\/td>\n60.55%<\/td>\nJJ+, AKs, AKo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 2<\/td>\n62.6%<\/td>\n60.55%<\/td>\n4.1% <\/td>\n35.35% <\/td>\nKK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>

            This example should be self-explanatory.<\/p>

            High cards: AKo<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
            Equity analysis<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Board<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
             <\/td>\nEquity<\/b><\/td>\nWin<\/b> <\/b><\/td>\nSplit<\/b><\/td>\nLoss<\/b><\/td>\nHand<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 1<\/td>\n60.22%<\/td>\n44.09%<\/td>\n32,26%<\/td>\n23.66%<\/td>\nJJ+, AKs, AKo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 2<\/td>\n39.79%<\/td>\n23.66%<\/td>\n32.26% <\/td>\n44.09% <\/td>\nAKo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>

            You know you can't 4-bet\/fold with AK. Above is the mathematical explanation for this, one more time.<\/p>

            Suited connectors: 67s<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
            Equity analysis<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Board<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
             <\/td>\nEquity<\/b><\/td>\nWin<\/b> <\/b><\/td>\nSplit<\/b><\/td>\nLoss<\/b><\/td>\nHand<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 1<\/td>\n70.32%<\/td>\n70.13%<\/td>\n0.39%<\/td>\n29.48%<\/td>\nJJ+, AKs, AKo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 2<\/td>\n29.68%<\/td>\n29.48%<\/td>\n0.39% <\/td>\n70.13% <\/td>\n67s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>

            A suited connector is a good (semi) bluff hand. You can rightly fold to a push.<\/p>

            Low pocket pairs: 55<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
            Equity analysis<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Board<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
             <\/td>\nEquity<\/b><\/td>\nWin<\/b> <\/b><\/td>\nSplit<\/b><\/td>\nLoss<\/b><\/td>\nHand<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 1<\/td>\n66.78%<\/td>\n66.57%<\/td>\n0.43%<\/td>\n33%<\/td>\nJJ+, AKs, AKo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 2<\/td>\n33.22%<\/td>\n33%<\/td>\n0.43% <\/td>\n66.57% <\/td>\n55<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>

            This is a tight spot. You only just have to fold, however, there's something special about this example:<\/p>

            The jacks cause the bad equity here. If you assume a broke range of QQ+\/AK, you'll get the following equity:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
            Equity analysis<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Board<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
             <\/td>\nEquity<\/b><\/td>\nWin<\/b> <\/b><\/td>\nSplit<\/b><\/td>\nLoss<\/b><\/td>\nHand<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 1<\/td>\n64.36%<\/td>\n64.14%<\/td>\n0.44%<\/td>\n35.43%<\/td>\nQQ+, AKs, AKo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 2<\/td>\n35.66%<\/td>\n35.43%<\/td>\n0.44% <\/td>\n64.14% <\/td>\n55<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>

            Here you can see that you can't 4-bet bluff with small pocket pairs against a tight broke range.<\/p>

            High card hands with card removal effect: A2s<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
            Equity analysis<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Board<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
             <\/td>\nEquity<\/b><\/td>\nWin<\/b> <\/b><\/td>\nSplit<\/b><\/td>\nLoss<\/b><\/td>\nHand<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 1<\/td>\n70.47%<\/td>\n69.44%<\/td>\n2.07%<\/td>\n28.5%<\/td>\nJJ+, AKs, AKo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 2<\/td>\n29.53%<\/td>\n28.5%<\/td>\n2.07% <\/td>\n69.44% <\/td>\nA2s<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>

            The card removal effect helps you out, however, you can put aside your hands without any problem on a push.<\/p>

            Crap: J3o<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
            Equity analysis<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Board<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
             <\/td>\nEquity<\/b><\/td>\nWin<\/b> <\/b><\/td>\nSplit<\/b><\/td>\nLoss<\/b><\/td>\nHand<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 1<\/td>\n80.04%<\/td>\n79.72%<\/td>\n0.64%<\/td>\n19.64%<\/td>\nJJ+, AKs, AKo<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
            Player 2<\/td>\n19.96%<\/td>\n19.64%<\/td>\n0.64% <\/td>\n79.72% <\/td>\nJ3o<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>

            This is clearly a fold. However, you need to ask the question: why raise a hand like this at all?<\/p>

            The results of this analysis are clear:<\/p>

              \n
            • 4-bet bluffs are suitable from an equity point of view: suited connectors, Ax\/Kx hands, crap <\/li>\n
            • 4-bet bluffs are not suitable from an equity point of view: pocket pairs, AK, high pairs<\/li>\n<\/ul>
              Considering raise size:<\/div>

              One quick step back: you only need 35% equity for the 2.5 times raise size.<\/p>

              What if you were to 4-bet as below?<\/p>

              EXAMPLE 2<\/div>

              100BB Stacks<\/b><\/p>

              Preflop:<\/b> Hero is CO XX
              Hero raises to 4BB<\/font>, BU raises to 12BB<\/font>, Hero raises to 50BB<\/font>, Villain pushes all-in<\/font><\/p>

              In this case you only need another 25% equity (50\/200). The result: you would have to go broke with 67s and A2s. Is this your goal?<\/p>

              In addition, every thinking opponent should be aware of this fact. Meaning, if you place a 4-bet so high that everybody knows you're committing yourself with it, you take the opportunity to push lightly (or bluff) away from your opponent. He can hardly give himself any more fold equity.<\/p>

              That means, on one hand, your payout will be reduced with a strong hand, while on the other, you have to go broke with crap hands, simply because you've committed yourself.<\/p>

              That can't be the purpose of this play. It also doesn't help that you're getting a slightly higher fold equity with a high 4-bet (you could equally push for maximum fold equity every time with a continuation bet, although it wouldn't make any sense).<\/p>

              This should bring you to the conclusion that a 4-bet of 2.5 times the size of a 3-bet is the ideal raise size, even if you rarely integrate 4-bet bluffs into your game.<\/p>

              Bluff\/value hands<\/h1>

              As ever you should know if you are raising the bluff in the hope that better hands may fold, or for value, in the hope that weaker hands may pay out to you.<\/p>

              According to the equity analysis above, this question only applies to one type of hand: small pocket pairs.<\/p>

              If you 4-bet here, you can't fold anymore. Still, can you in all seriousness play 4-bet\/call for value with hands such as these?<\/p>

              You have very little maneuvering room here. Still, it should make it clear that going broke lightly with hands such as a middle pocket pair (TT-77), which could still dominate smaller pocket pairs, isn't always a bad idea.<\/p>

              Reads are paramount here, as well as the question as to whether it's necessary from a deception or balancing point of view. However, we won't look any more closely at the point now, as the focus of this article is pure 4-bet bluffs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
              » SUMMARY<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              \n

              In this article we've taken the first steps in 4-bet bluffing. A few basics about equity are prerequisite for this kind of action. As you've seen, with pocket pairs a 4-bet\/fold for 100BB is hardly possible. That's why in the next part we'll look at hands where this sort of play makes sense.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              In the first part of the column series \"Bluff 4-Bets\" you'll get to know the theory behind this complex subject. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":""},"strategy_category":[199],"strategy_level":[279],"class_list":["post-2085","strategy","type-strategy","status-publish","hentry","strategy_category-no-limit-bss"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory - PokerStrategy Sverige<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"sv_SE\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory - PokerStrategy Sverige\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the first part of the column series "Bluff 4-Bets" you'll get to know the theory behind this complex subject.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"PokerStrategy Sverige\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-12T09:35:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/download\/psmag\/bilder\/bild_kolumne.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"10 minuter\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/strategy\\\/weekly-no-limit\\\/1679\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/strategy\\\/weekly-no-limit\\\/1679\\\/\",\"name\":\"4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory - PokerStrategy Sverige\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/strategy\\\/weekly-no-limit\\\/1679\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/strategy\\\/weekly-no-limit\\\/1679\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/download\\\/psmag\\\/bilder\\\/bild_kolumne.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-01T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-12T09:35:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/strategy\\\/weekly-no-limit\\\/1679\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"sv-SE\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/strategy\\\/weekly-no-limit\\\/1679\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sv-SE\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/strategy\\\/weekly-no-limit\\\/1679\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/download\\\/psmag\\\/bilder\\\/bild_kolumne.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/download\\\/psmag\\\/bilder\\\/bild_kolumne.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/strategy\\\/weekly-no-limit\\\/1679\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Strategies\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/strategy\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/\",\"name\":\"PokerStrategy Sverige\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.pokerstrategy.com\\\/sv\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"sv-SE\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory - PokerStrategy Sverige","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/","og_locale":"sv_SE","og_type":"article","og_title":"4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory - PokerStrategy Sverige","og_description":"In the first part of the column series \"Bluff 4-Bets\" you'll get to know the theory behind this complex subject.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/","og_site_name":"PokerStrategy Sverige","article_modified_time":"2026-08-12T09:35:48+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/download\/psmag\/bilder\/bild_kolumne.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"10 minuter"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/","url":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/","name":"4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory - PokerStrategy Sverige","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/download\/psmag\/bilder\/bild_kolumne.jpg","datePublished":"2010-09-01T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-12T09:35:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"sv-SE","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sv-SE","@id":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/download\/psmag\/bilder\/bild_kolumne.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/download\/psmag\/bilder\/bild_kolumne.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/weekly-no-limit\/1679\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Strategies","item":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/strategy\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"4-Bet Bluffs (1) - Theory"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/","name":"PokerStrategy Sverige","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"sv-SE"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/strategy\/2085","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/strategy"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/strategy"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2085"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"strategy_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/strategy_category?post=2085"},{"taxonomy":"strategy_level","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.pokerstrategy.com\/sv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/strategy_level?post=2085"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}