Author: JohnnyLaw
John Lawford, also known as JonnyLaw, is a regular MTT middle limit online poker player passionate about the Progressive Knockout format.
Translated by order of the educational portal university.poker, original source: GTO Wizard
Final tables can be the most exciting and monetary phase of a tournament, and being able to turn those final tables into wins is critical to our overall performance as poker players. This is especially true for the Progressive knockout (PKO) final tables, where we see both big jumps in payouts and big knockout rewards. So how do we maximize profits at the final PKO tables while avoiding unnecessary risk and giving ourselves the best chance of winning rewards? Today we will look at how PKO final tables differ from the final tables of classic tournaments, and how our strategy is changing between these two formats.
1. Difference in payout structure
Before we discuss the strategic differences between the final tables in PKO and the classic tournaments, we need to understand how the distribution of payouts affects our risk premium in these types of tournaments.
Here is a comparison of the payouts used in the GTO Wizard for PKO games and classic tournaments:
| 200 players | PKO- 200 players | ||
| Other phases | All phases | ||
| 1 | 19.14% | 1-2 | 16.13% |
| 2 | 14.17% | 3 | 11.12% |
| 3 | 10.49% | 4 | 8.38% |
| 4 | 8.01% | 5 | 6.32% |
| 5 | 6.14% | 6 | 4.46% |
| 6 | 4.81% | 7 | 3.59% |
| 7 | 3.71% | 8 | 2.71% |
| 8 | 2.85% | 9 | 2.21% |
| 9 | 2.22% | 10-11 | 1.80% |
| 10-11 | 1.87% | 12-13 | 1.63% |
| 12-13 | 1.69% | 14-17 | 1.46% |
| 14-17 | 1.49% | 18-23 | 1.33% |
| 18-23 | 1.28% | 24-30 | 1.14% |
| 24-30 | 1.1% | ||
The payout structure in PKO is flatter: for the first and second places, the same amounts from the prize pool are paid. This is because the winner of the PKO tournament earns his bounty and a reward for knocking out his opponent, which is often a significant addition to the final prize. A flatter payout structure in PKO tournaments leads to higher risk premiums in a vacuum situation (i.e., without taking into account adjustments for opponents, etc.). A stronger bubble factor narrows our range, but the strength of the bounty softens it due to increased knockouts and, in turn, expands the range. Let's see how these two competing factors intertwine at the final table.
Excluding the bounty, the higher bubble factor on the final PKO tables results in higher risk premiums.
2. Bubble factor in PKO
Below are two graphs comparing the bubble factors of the PKO and Classic final tables (regular tournaments without bounty) based on the relative stack depth (0 to 100 BB per stack). In the first chart, we removed the impact of bounty to emphasize the impact of payouts on our strategy.
As we noted earlier, a flatter payout structure in PKO results in a higher bubble factor in a vacuum. Now let's add the bounty back into the calculation and see what happens.
The fall at the end represents the moment when we have the opportunity to win such a reward that at that moment the bubble factor drops below 1. This tells us that the chips you risk at the final PKO table are much more valuable than the chips you can get. This is true until you risk enough to collect a large reward. Of course, this is purely hypothetical, since any real final table will have an uneven stack distribution. Despite this, it is important to note the limited bounty effect on the final tables. The next question to ask is how the bubble factor affects our overall strategy when it comes to building the ranges of the final PKO table. Let's look at our Raise First In (RFI) range across multiple stacks of different depths to find out.
3. Comparison of ranges in PKO and classical tournaments
Below are three RFI ranges taken from the GTO Wizard solution library for the PKO final table and the classic 7-player tournament.
Final table for 7 people. (RKO on the left ↔ is classic on the right)
The main difference of this example is that the big blind is now covered, so players in later positions have access to their reward.
Despite this, only the player on the small blind significantly expands his RFI range, reducing limes and adding open raises. In contrast, CO, which covers all players remaining in the game, opens only 3% more hands (meaning 39% in the RKO and a number of 36% in the classic, see the diagram below).
The following chart shows how the opening strategy changes when players have shorter stacks:
Finally, let's look at the example with a short stack, where the entire table is less than 20bb in size.
In this example, several interesting things should be noted:
- At shallow depths, PKO has significantly fewer open push capabilities.
- A player with a short stack on HJ has a similar strategy in both PKO and the classic tournament, playing more tight in PKO.
- Despite the fact that the player on the small blind (SB) leads in chips, he opens fewer hands in the PKO example.
- In PKO, there are more raises than pushes from all middle and late positions, even for SB.
The conclusions from these three examples are:
- Risk premiums do not increase or decrease based on the total stack depth at the final table.
- Bubble factors are lower in PKO for all players, but significantly lower for those players who cover others.
- Despite the lower bubble factors, the range at the final tables of PKO and the classic tournaments are similar.
Although the risk premium at the final tables in PKO is lower, this does not have a significant impact on our RFI range compared to the final tables in classic tournaments.
4. Call range
Now that we understand how we should basically open up, let's see how we should react to the player's actions in front of us.
- The following is an example of a covered player's call (who will give up his bounty if he loses) in a PKO scenario relative to normal classic tournaments:
We see that, covering the player who put the all-in, when another player remains to act, the button re-puffs with almost the same percentage of hands, but calls more often. In the PKO example, we see re-pushes of more pocket pair and the addition of A-10 to the range for RKO. This is because the button wants to knock out the overcards of the small blind with their middle pairs, while retaining the opportunity to receive a reward from HJ, who plays with a wider range. In this example, the button can still fold the lower part of its range (e.g., 77, A-10o, AJo) if SB makes a turnip while defending with its premium pocket pairs.
The general rule of thumb in PKO with the remaining players covering us is to balance your call range with the top and bottom of your range, while maximizing the fold equity with your middle pairs and strong aces.
Let's see how wide a chip leader can play when faced with a 3-bet at a table with a deeper stack on the final PKO table as opposed to a regular classic tournament.
Now we see a much greater contrast between strategies! In both examples, we quickly play our best hands, but at PKO, as the chip leader, we don't mind going post-flop with hands that feel good there (cling well). Pocket fours and threes provide benefits in the form of fold equity to the chip leader, while helping to balance their 4-beta range with premium hands.
In both examples, we see:
- As a covering player, we are able to call both all-in and non- all-in 3-bet.
- Collation is not all-in 3-bet, we use the part of our range that plays well on the post-flop.
- We don't fall into the trap with the top of our range when the 3-bettor is tied to the pot.
5. Short stack play
Finally, let's see what happens when there are not enough players at the final tables. In the example below, there are four players left with average stacks of 30 big blinds that are close to each other.
We see that in a game with short stacks, when the stacks are close to each other in size, we play a much wider range, covering the players remaining in the game, with the exception of the small blind. We can understand why this happens by comparing bubble factors.
In this case, there is a relatively small difference of 0.3 between the bubble factor of the small blind when playing against the big blind (0.97 for RKO and 1.27 for a regular tournament).
- For comparison, let's give an example of a game on an average stack of 30 big blinds with an explicit chip leader.
Let's look at the bubble chip-leader factor to explain why its range is so wide in our PKO example. We see that the chip-leader has a huge incentive to play here with a wide range, as we expected, but the interesting thing is that in the classic tournament he plays an even wider range. A chip leader can exert tremendous pressure on a short stack without risking himself, since losing a pot will not affect his overall position in the tournament.
You may have noticed that in PKO, the bubble factor of SB is lower than 1 when playing against other positions. It is worth seeing how these negative risk premiums affect the reaction of the small blind to the actions of other players in this table.
The following chart shows how SB reacts to the actions at the four-player PKO final table:
- SB saw the action (opponent's position and stack) - bounty
A few notes to the table above:
- Despite the negative risk premiums, the chip leader resets most hands if the CO and BTN open.
- When pushing BTN or BB, the player on the SB still decently resets. In the button push case, we reset all our aces below AT, all our hands without an ace except the suited KQ, and all our pocket pair below 66.
- SB has a range of non-all-in 3-betas against CO and BTN, the bottom of which folds in response to the 4-betas.
- SB raise/folds some of its junk hands against BB to balance its risk premiums.
Even with a big stack at the PKO final table, we play in a relatively narrow range against our short-stack opponents when we meet all-in of them.
6. Conclusion
Any final table represents the highest risk to reward ratio compared to other stages of the tournament. When faced with decisions at the final table, a reasonable question arises: how do we best maximize rewards while reducing risks? In particular, in PKO tournaments, it can be seen that the approach we use when choosing the opening and call ranges is still closely related to our approach to the final tables of classic tournaments. Even with the added profit from rewards for covered players, we still take a disciplined approach when confronted with aggression.
Key takeaways:
- By collating the all-ins of the players covering us, we balance our calls of the upper part of the range with the lower part, while maximizing the fold equity, putting the all-in themselves with medium pairs and strong aces. (see section “call range”, conclusions in quotes)
- Even with a big stack at the PKO final table, we play in a relatively narrow range against our opponents.
- Bounty compensates for the higher risk premiums associated with the fixed payout structure in PKO on the final table, but they are not enough to significantly change our range compared to the standard range of classic tournaments.
