PKO Versus Classic: Responding to 3-Bets

One of the keys to adapting to new game formats, such as Progressive Knockout (PKO) tournaments, is understanding when to adjust our preflop approach from that of a Classic tournament. In PKO tournaments, this begins with how we play preflop, both in the early and late stages of a tournament. Our previous articles on PKO preflop ranges covered opening ranges and how we respond to an open. Building on this knowledge, let’s look at how to handle 3-bets in a PKO versus a Classic ICM environment and how we respond based on our stack sizes.

3-Bet Frequency Review

Before we look at 3-bet responses, let’s review what we observed about PKO 3-bet frequencies in our “Responding to a Preflop Open” article (linked in the intro).

Symmetric Stack Comparisons

We’ll begin by looking at how we react to a 3-bet when playing UTG at symmetric stacks. The interactive chart below shows how each position responds to a UTG open.

We can immediately observe a few key differences in PKO responses to an open:

To get a better idea of why the responses to 3-bets change so drastically in some of these comparisons, let’s revisit how the risk premiumsRisk Premium
Risk Premium measures the extra risk you take stacking off in an MTT. It’s a measure of survival pressure and a valuable tool for understanding ICM spots. Risk premium is defined as the extra equity you’d need to call someone’s shove, compared to a (chip EV) pot odds calculation. RP = Required Equity (ICM) – Required Equity (cEV) when stacks are fully invested. Each player has a unique risk premium against every other player in a tournament. compare by stack depth and tournament stage.

We can see that as stacks get shallower and the tournament progresses, the difference in risk premiums becomes more pronounced.

Asymmetric Stacks

Now that we have seen how risk premiums impact our PKO strategy with symmetric stacks, let’s see how we adjust our postflop ranges in a PKO depending on whether we are a big, middling, or short stack.

ICM = 75% Field Left

UTG Open

Big Stack

Big Stack (CO) 3-bet vs UTG Open

First, let’s look at how CO 3-bets against this UTG opening range:

UTG Response vs Big Stack (CO) 3-bet

And here is the UTG response to this 3-bet range:

Despite being covered in the PKO solution, UTG still plays a wider call and 4-bet range. This is partly due to the lower risk premiums in PKOs and partly as a result of CO’s wider 3-bet range that allows more hands into UTG’s range. This includes calling with higher-equity hands like suited broadways and 4-betting stronger pocket pairs like JJ and QQ that perform better against the CO’s wider range at a higher frequency.

Another thing you might notice is the use of a 69.9bb 4-bet size. We will see in future articles that this committal 4-bet sizing gets used regularly in PKOs. For more information on when and how this sizing is used, see Matt Hunt’s GTO Wizard video: ‘The Fake All-in’: A New Trend in Poker Tournaments.

Mid Stack

Mid Stack (LJ) 3-bet vs UTG Open

In comparison, here’s the LJ 3-bet range:

UTG Response vs Mid Stack (LJ) 3-bet

And UTG’s response to this 3-bet:

Compared to our previous example, UTG now prefers flatting LJ’s 3-bet with a wider part of their range while 4-betting less often in a PKO. With LJ’s bounty available and a -5.6% risk premium, UTG is incentivized to see a flop with nearly their full opening range. To balance this wide flatting range, UTG now includes calls with hands as strong as AKs and KK, which would have 4-bet or jammed in a non-PKO game.

Short Stack

Short Stack (BB) 3-bet vs UTG Open

Finally, let’s take a look at BB’s response, as the shortest stack at the table, to a UTG open.

UTG Open

Big Stack

Big Stack (LJ) 3-bet vs UTG Open

Again, we’ll begin with how the big stack in the LJ 3-bets against this UTG opening range.

UTG Response vs Big Stack (LJ) 3-bet

And below is UTG’s response to these 3-bets:

When covered, we see UTG use a similar strategy in both the PKO and Classic examples. They prefer to flat a 3-bet with a wider range due to their 4.3% lower risk premium. Specifically, we see additional calls from hands performing well postflop, such as suited connectors and wheel Aces.

Mid Stack

Mid Stack (BTN) 3-bet vs UTG Open

Looking at a shallower stack, here is how the Button 3-bets against UTG.

UTG Response vs Mid Stack (BTN) 3-bet

And below is UTG’s response to these 3-bets:

As the shorter stack, the Button has a similar response to UTG’s open, only incorporating JJ into their 3-bet range, while making negligible changes to their calling range. The bigger changes come from UTG’s response, where we see more calling and NAI 4-bets in the PKO example. With a 6.6% lower risk premium in the PKO, UTG is willing to play a wider range postflop.

Short Stack

Short Stack (SB) 3-bet vs UTG Open

Finally, let’s look at how the short stack in the Small Blind responds to UTG.

Here’s how UTG responds to both a non-all-in (NAI) and an all-in 3-bet from the SB.

NAI Response:

All-in Response:

Off 18bb and out of position, the Small Blind prefers a jam-or-fold strategy with nearly their full range in both solutions. The interesting difference between this and previous cases is that the PKO and classic solutions have similar strategies as the risk premiums are closer in this example. The one difference between UTG’s responses is the addition of AQo, 99, and TT in their all-in calling range due to their -2.6% risk premium in the PKO solution.

Summary

As a final step in understanding how preflop ranges change in Progressive Knockout (PKO) tournaments, we must understand how to respond to aggression when raising first in. In a PKO, the primary considerations when facing a 3-bet are how our stack relates to the 3-bettor and how we construct our flatting and 4-bet ranges. Throughout the examples above, we saw that in PKOs:

If you want to look at how each position responds to a 3-bet across PKO and Classic ICM solutions, feel free to try out the drills linked below!