Stop Redening Your Equity In The Knockout Tournament

Hitman wisely chooses the target carefully, If you don’t play the knockout poker tournament as part of your schedule, you really lose. They are both the most fun and are the largest value format on the internet today.

In the Knockout / Bounty tournament, a gift is the number of money prizes that you win for each player you defeat. For example, in a $ 100 + 20 knockout tournament with a $ 20 prize, you win $ 20 for each player you get rid of the tournament, besides the normal payment structure. Even most winning players have a striking leak in their game when it comes to dealing with KO. It turns out that playing optimal knockout poker is not so easy, after all …

There are several subcategories of the KO tournament out there. This is 3 which is common now.

In Super Knockouts, 50% of your purchase goes to an ordinary gift pool, and the other half ends on your scalp. So, in a $ 100 supercnockout tournament, you basically play MTT buy $ 50 where you also get $ 50 for each ko.

Ko (normal) is the same as above, except that the gift is only 20%, meaning the gift is quite significant. It was once the only prize variant offered, until someone finally realized that they needed to raise the value of every gift to make everything more interesting.

In progressive supercnockout (Bounty Builders on PokerStars), the initial value of every gift in a $ 100 tournament again $ 50, but the twist is when you destroy someone, you only get half of their gift, and the other half is added to your own bounty. So, if you receive someone in the first hand of the tournament, you are clean $ 25, and your own gift goes up to $ 75. If someone then your statue, they are clean $ 37.50, and the other half goes to their gifts, etc., etc. This is the most popular format today, and of course the most fun as in the final stage, gifts tend to be very valuable.

Does it sound complicated? I also don’t think so. It seems clear that in ordinary knockouts, the gifts are almost meaningless and we must barely pursue them at all, while in the supercnockout we have to take risks, because the gift makes half of the entire collection of gifts. It all makes sense, and not far from the truth. But arriving at the conclusion is only a small part of the puzzle.

Most players think of gifts in monetary terms. Facing all-in by shorter stacks, they think of the money they will receive if they win hands. This is the wrong approach. Because we play poker tournaments and not cash games, we have to do our calculations at Chip Tournaments, not real world currencies. To be able to make the right call, we must know what is worthy of every gift. Finding out this is quite easy. In the supercnockout tournament, you get x chips (in this example; 3,000) for 50 percent of your purchase. One gift is worth one initial stack in the super knockout tournament. Thus, a gift is worth 3,000 chips. Similarly, in the regular KO tournament you will receive 3,000 chips for 80 percent of your purchase, which means the gift is worth 750 chips.

In the format of the progressive ko tournament it becomes a little more complicated. Using a typical progressive superknockout tournament with 50% gift gift gifts and 3,000 initial stacks for example, initial gifts are worth a little more than 1,500 chips (50% of 3,000 chips, because 50% go to your own prize). Why a little end? Because tournament winners must maintain their own gifts, and thus you always have some equity of gifts on yourself. At the initial level of the mass field tournament, that extra equity is almost worthless, but it can be a considerable problem later. Still, I would usually suggest all but ignore the equity you have on your own gift, unless you are at the stage of the tournament very late.

The part above is what you have to use as the basis for approaching mathematics in the knockout tournament, but not perfect. The main reason is that since we play tournaments, the chips we get are always less valuable than the chips we lose (see: Introduction to ICM). Without accounting for ICM, the value of your piles theoretically can achieve more than the first place prize in the tournament, which is clearly impossible. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are also hidden values ​​that are often called a little more loose than you “must” – this is especially true when you stacked short. A good example will be a place like this:

Fold to BTN.

Btn (8 bb) runs everything

SB fold (10 bb)

BB (Hero, 8.1 bb) is pondering calls with hands slightly below what will be recommended by the push / folding chart.

Here, if you fold a preflope, you will be the shortest stack on the table, and thus, “Bounty Equity” you immediately become zero – you can’t win anyone’s gift by knocking it down, because you are the shortest stack. But if you call and win, you don’t just get a button gift, but now you will also discuss the player to your right, which will push the short stack in the middle immediately. Because you also have a position to him, you will have in the gift, and thus your future equity on the gift adds some value to calling an initial push.

Note: Ready to start winning the Poker Tournament (more)? Learn the tactics that work vs. Tangguh player, weaker players, and everyone in between when you join the Expert Level Course Nick Petrangelo.

I can write a book about common mistakes made by people in the prize tournament, but this so far is the most common and expensive: does not adjust to the tournament stage and fail to understand the chip value of every gift. If you can always form a rough estimate of the value (in the chip!) From every gift, you are better than many winning. A large number of experienced bounty hunters still treat the gift for their cash value, although whether the extra chip in the gift is meaningful or not entirely depends on the tournament stage. Let’s look at the example when a loose call is actually good.

SuperKnockout Tournament $ 100, 3,000 Chip Stack, Blinds 150/300/30

Fold to the player in a small blind

Small blind running everything for 3,000 chips, heroes covering large blindness.

Here, the actual pot size of 6,570 chips (ante, bb hero, push 3,000 chips, and 3,000-chip gifts). The hero needs to call 2,700 to win the 9.270 = hero only requires 29.1% equity for the correct call. Obviously, the gift here is very significant, because without gifts there will be fewer 3,000 chips in pots, and the hero needs 43% to call. Now let’s look at the example when a loose call is a complete disaster.

SuperKnockout $ 100, on the final table bubble with 10 remaining players. Blind at 15,000 / 30,000 / 3,000.

It fold to the player in a small blind.

SB Shoves on us for 300,000 chips (10 large blinds), heroes include big blind

In this example, 3,000 chips, gifts are only worth one ante; In other words, basically it doesn’t exist. In this example, you need to contact 270,000 additional chips to win the 618,000 pot – you need 43.7% for calls to be true. Without gifts will be 43.9%. It is clear that 0.2% basically has no effect on the correct call range. But time after time you see people make loose calls with hopes of getting gifts – this is because they only see them for their cash value. The $ 50 cash award immediately to drop you blind them, even though making a bad call can easily cost 20 times.

 

Do not understand the true value of every progressive superknockout gift – We have passed this, but once again for a good size: you just really get half of the value you see next to the player’s avatar. The other half goes to your own gift (where you then have some equity as long as you have a chip).

Call shoves too loose in general – I repeated myself a little here, but I really want to make sure to drive this house. At least 95 percent of each field of MTT Bounty will contact Shoves too loose in the hope of getting gifts. This is a rare case when instead. You must always hope to be called more free than you think, and thus adjust your own shoving range in many places.

Playing too tight early – However, a surprising many people also played too tight at the initial level. It is interesting about how most populations play MTT gifts to keep their stacks with precision from the start, just to blow it up making horrible calls when the curtain becomes bigger. In fact, it does not have the willingness to gamble since the beginning is a fairly large leak. This is because the gift is always much more valuable at the initial stage – 3,000 chips means more with curtains on 50/100 from 5,000 / 10,000. And also, falling behind expensive earlier, because when you are the shortest stack, you don’t have the chance to win other people’s gifts. It is important to realize that if you don’t discuss anyone, you just play for half of the gift pool. Say you have a flush draw during the initial level and your opponent flows at all, it doesn’t just give you a pot directly to call. If you cover them and thus win their gifts, then you have enough opportunities. But even if you don’t, it’s important to consider how much you will leave if you fold. I am usually quite happy to gamble in a place where I became the shortest stack on the table by folding, but by pressing my draw it would include most players. The difference in “future bounty equity” will be broad enough to justify calls in many cases. However, I want to emphasize that you also can’t do anything crazy to get the initial tin – while you only play for half of the gift pool as the shortest stack, you play for nothing if you bust the tournament.

Read the wrong dynamics / excessive
This is something I will not think of at a lower level, but I see this happens a lot on higher bets. I recently read the utas posted by a very good player, about the place he met in a progressive $ 1,000 superknockout tournament he found was very difficult. Hands spawn pages and discussion pages, and roughly like this:

The final stage of the progressive ko is $ 1,000. Bounty Hero is worth $ 5,500.

Hero (27 bb) rose to 2.1 bb with from co

BTN folds

SB (100 bb, very good regular) 3-bet up to 6.1 bb

Bb (45 bb) fold, hero?

I looked at your hand for a while. Of course I have to lose something? Why are these hands debated for weeks? I read a reply. A large number they recommend folds. The second most popular choice is calling, hoping to achieve something. Only a small number of posters who recommend encouragement. Why? Because they all thought that the small blind cover must be strong, because our gifts were very large and thus he put the opportunity to call with almost everything he was honored. His hands are a good example of how to play Bounty MTTS can mess up your head. You basically play two different games simultaneously, and sometimes it’s hard to keep your head straight on both fronts at the same time. It happens to everyone now and then, no matter how strong their fundamentals are. When this happens, it is usually the best to simplify the situation as much as you can in your head.

Note: You want to make more last tables and win more tournaments, right? Take your poker game to the highest level, satisfaction guaranteed, by diving into the Poker Temper Tournament Nick Pinkello.

In the example above, I will encourage without hesitation because of three reasons:

1. He can have a worse value for value, because he will be right for 3-bet / phone with hands like K-Q or A-T.
2. He can still fold into encouragement. If I was in SB shoes, I would throw some pure cliffs into the 3-betting range I expect CO to make a few strict folds.
3. We have a top 5% in Cutoff 27 Big Blinds Deep, for ****

While the gift adds another dimension to the game, it’s good to stay in my mind that we still only play poker tournaments, and don’t need to make things harder than them. You still have to, first and foremost, try playing a rather crowded tournament poker. Look for reasons to deviate from the norm, don’t deviate from it as standard. Most of the hands will still play the same game, regardless of the gifts involved, and do not need to make absurd adjustments and our level becomes forgotten.

The last table plays in progressive ko
In a progressive KO format, the last player that stands will also get the gift itself fully. So, by knocking down your last opponent in the tournament, you will not only get their entire gift, but also 100 percent of your own. Thus, progressive KO (and especially progressive supercnockout) always has a very large, and important payment structure to always encourage victory, with respect to ICM. If we look at this final table, for example:

As we know, by knocking down someone, you only get half of the amount displayed next to the player’s avatar. However, because by knocking someone here, you will also get your head, your equity on the last two gifts remaining is quite significant. Once we arrive at this part of the tournament, I do not oppose caring for the gift in accordance with their cash value (because the ICM final table is also related to real life currencies). So, what should be our basic strategy like every player here?

RikinHD: We have chip ownership, and the first thing we have to note is that the Gift of APOP33 is quite large. We have to find a shot to drop it before another player does it. However, it is important to protect our stack – we currently have a great shot to win every gift left in the tournament regardless. So I will try playing the last typical table poker – Try to press my opponent, but don’t risk crazy. It should be noted that if we hold one of the remaining players, we will no longer lead the chip, and cannot knock down immediately APOP33 will be very bad for us. Also, noohooooooow gifts almost have no meaning, and we have to avoid doing something stupid trying to chase him. In short, I will play close to how I played as a chip leader from a normal tournament at this stage. The most common mistake done by people here is after APOP33 like crazy people and get their chips very badly – while getting the gift it is profitable, we still have good shots and banks all the gifts left and ourselves by continuing to grind by playing a small pot .

APOP33: Our situation is quite interesting, because our gifts are very large so we will call a definite light when we leave. Because the gift of other short stacks is very small, multiplying has no advantages directly from the perspective of gifts. So, I would avoid a big run for the most part, and concentrate on trying to make a payuntump of $ 95 (19 Buy-in!). But still, it doesn’t mean we have to play like Nit. It was always a bit of a disaster to end second in a progressive KO tournament. If Rikinhd broke another man, we will get a Payuntump, but then he will also have Chiplead 3.5: 1 over US head, where we will play with a total of $ 417.26 (half of the gift of noooooooow, plus the last two gifts in full, plus Payjump difference between 1 and 2 places). It would be better to have more chips that go up the head, because it will give us a better chance to win everything and all the extra money. It should be noted that the first place gift by itself (without gifts included) is $ 481, but the difference between the first and second is almost worth a lot when you count the last two gifts. In APOP33 shoes, I will take some calculated risks, but try to set my movement time as well as possible, because the two opponents I will call me a definite light.

Noohooooooow: I really played a group of the most aggressively on his shoes, especially against APOP33. We really want to get the gift – while the next bayjump is $ 95, knocking down APOP33 will soon clean US $ 89.73, plus we will get a head with more or less pile play for $ 347.16. It is true that ICM is still important, and the payment of $ 95 is something that must be taken seriously, but I will try to encourage victory and be happy to take risks, especially against APOP33. If we drop APOP33, we will not only get Payuntump and gifts, but we will also have 50% equity in the remaining $ 347.16. Trying to maximize our chances of getting all the money is clearly more important than just getting one Payuntump. Again, I will not do crazy things, but I will consider playing too tightly and hobbling is a greater mistake than making a slightly questioned encouragement and regularly eliminated third.

P.S: I chose not to cover some of the format formats that were less popular here just to avoid this article ending too long.