Mastering PKO Final Tables

Final tables can be the most exciting and rewarding phase of a tournament, and being able to convert these final tables into wins is crucial to our overall results as poker players. This is especially true for Progressive Knockout (PKO) final tables, where we find both big pay jumps and big bounties.

So how do we maximize our return at these PKO final tables while avoiding taking unnecessary risks and giving ourselves the best chance to capture bounties? Today we’ll be looking at how PKO final tables compare to Classic final tables, and how our strategy changes between these two formats.

Payout Structure Differences

Without considering bounties, the higher bubble factors involved in PKO final tables lead to higher risk premiums.

Bubble Factors in PKOs

Below are two graphs comparing the bubble factors in PKO and Classic final tables based on relative stack depth. In the first graph, we have removed the effects of bounties to emphasize the impact of payouts on our strategy.

As we noted earlier, flatter payout structure in PKOs results in higher bubble factors in a vacuum. Now let’s add the bounties back in and see what happens.

The drop at the end represents the point where stacks are fully invested, and we have the opportunity to win a bounty, at which point the bubble factor drops below 1. What this tells us, is that the chips you risk on the final table of a PKO are far more valuable than the chips you stand to gain. This holds true up until you risk enough to play for bounties.

Of course, this is purely hypothetical as any real world final table would have uneven stack distributions. Despite this, it’s important to note the limited effect of bounties on final tables. The next question to ask is how do these bubble factors impact our overall strategy when it comes to constructing PKO final table ranges. Let’s take a look at our Raise First In (RFI) ranges at a few different stack depths to find out.

PKO and Classic Range Comparisons

Below are three RFI ranges pulled from identical PKO and Classic 7-handed final table solutions from the GTO Wizard library.

In our first example, with a 60 big blind average stack depth there is little to no difference between our opening ranges by position. The primary difference is in small blind’s Limp First In (LFI) and RFI ranges when covered by the big blind, who has 83 big blinds. You can view these ranges in the links below:

Next, let’s explore how stack depth impacts our strategy.

In this second example, we see the impacts of shallower stacks on our strategy. With average stacks at 30 big blinds, our strategy starts to diverge in a PKO with more raising in the Cut off (CO), Button (BTN) and Small Blind (SB). The primary difference in this example is the big blind is now covered, so the later position players have access to their bounty. Even so, only the small blind expands their RFI range significantly by exchanging limps for opens. In contrast, the CO, who covers all players left to act, opens only 3% more hands.

The following chart shows how the opening strategy changes when players are shorter stacked:

You can view these ranges in the links below:

Finally, let’s look at a short stack example where the full table is under 20bb.

There are a few exciting things to note in this example:

You can view these ranges in the links below:

The takeaway from these three examples are:

While risk premiums are lower at PKO final tables this does not significantly affect our RFI ranges when comparing them to Classic final tables.

Calling Ranges

Now that we understand how we play first to act, let’s look at what happens when responding to a previous player’s actions. Below is an example of calling a covered player in a PKO versus Classic scenario:

PKO Range

Classic Range

We can see that when covering an all-in player with one other player left to act, the button is re-shoving a nearly identical percentage of hands, but calling more often. In the PKO example, we see more pocket pairs re-shoving and the addition of AT into their range. This is because the button wants to fold out SB’s overcards with their middle pairs, while still having the opportunity to collect HJ’s bounty with a wider range. BTN can still get away from the bottom of their range in this example (e.g. 77, ATo, AJo) if SB re-shoves, while protecting those hands with their premium pocket pairs.

The general rule in PKOs when calling all-ins with covering players left to act is to balance your calling range with the top and bottom of your range while maximizing fold equity with your middle pairs and strong ace hands.

Let’s look at how wide a chip lead gets to play when facing a 3-bet at a deeper stacked table in a PKO versus Classic final table.

PKO Range

Classic Range

Now we see a much bigger contrast between strategies! In both examples we’re fast playing our best hands, but in the PKO as chip lead we don’t mind going postflop with hands that play well post. Pocket fours and threes benefit from the big stack’s fold equity, while helping to balance their otherwise premium heavy 4-bet range. In both examples we can see:

Short Handed Play

Finally, let’s look at what happens once final tables get short handed. In the example below there are four players remaining with 30 big blind average stacks that are close to one another.

We can see that short handed when stacks are close we’re playing a much wider range when covering the players left to act with the exception of the small blind. We can see why this is when we compare bubble factors.

PKO Bubble Factor

Classic Bubble Factor

In this instance there is a relatively small difference of 0.3 between the small blind’s bubble factor when playing against the big blind. You can view these ranges in the links below:

For comparison purposes, here’s a 30 big blind average stack example with a definite chip leader.

Let’s look at the chip lead’s bubble factors for an explanation as to why their range is so wide in our PKO example.

We can see the chip lead has a huge incentive to play a wide range here as we would suspect, but the interesting thing is they play an even wider range in the Classic solution. The chip lead can apply an immense amount of pressure on the short stack with no risk to themselves as losing a pot would not impact their overall tournament position.

PKO Bubble Factor

Classic Bubble Factor

You might notice that in the PKO solution, the bubble factor is below 1 when playing against the other positions. It’s worth looking at how these negative risk premiums impact the small blind’s response to actions from the rest of the table:

The following chart shows how SB responds facing action at a 4-handed final PKO table:

A few notes on the table above:

Even as the big stack at a short-handed PKO final table, we play a relatively tight range versus our short stacked opponents when facing all-ins.

You can view these ranges in the links below:

Conclusion