Female Pros Dominate $25K US Open Final Table Lineup

Three women have secured seats at the final table of the 2026 US Poker Open’s $25,000 buy-in championship event, with Kristen Foxen entering play second in chips. The unprecedented female representation at this high-stakes finale caps off a series where women have already claimed two titles, signaling a significant shift in poker’s elite tournament landscape.

What Happened

The 2026 US Poker Open’s climactic $25,000 no-limit hold’em event has set up what promises to be a compelling final table, with seven players returning to the PokerGO Studio to compete for the $420,000 first-place prize. Among the survivors from the 48-entry field are three accomplished female professionals: Kristen Foxen, Cherish Andrews, and ACR Team Pro Ebony Kenney.

Reigning Poker Masters champion David Coleman commands the chip lead with 1,945,000, while Foxen sits in a strong second position with 1,760,000. The final table also features established pros Richard Green (1,250,000), Darren Elias (775,000), and Jesse Lonis (740,000). Andrews enters play with 545,000, and Kenney will need to mount a comeback from the short stack of 185,000.

The tournament bubble burst when Coleman’s pocket kings held against Brock Wilson’s ace-king, eliminating Wilson in 8th place and guaranteeing the remaining seven players a minimum payout of $48,000. Play resumes with blinds at 15,000/25,000 and a 25,000 big blind ante.

Beyond individual glory, Andrews is chasing her partner Wilson for the overall series leaderboard title. Wilson currently leads with 495 PGT points after securing two victories during the 10-event series, but Andrews remains mathematically alive for the championship with 282 points. A victory would award her 252 additional points and the series crown, along with the Championship Bonus package for future PGT events.

The Poker Strategy Breakdown

The final table presents a fascinating strategic landscape shaped by stack distributions and player skill sets. Coleman’s chip lead gives him approximately 78 big blinds, providing tremendous flexibility to apply pressure without risking his tournament life. Foxen’s 70-big-blind stack positions her equally well to navigate the early stages with selective aggression.

The middle stacks—Green, Elias, and Lonis—face the classic final table dilemma of when to accumulate versus when to preserve. With stacks ranging from 30 to 50 big blinds, these players have enough ammunition to make moves but can’t afford major confrontations without careful consideration of ICM implications. This stack depth typically produces cautious play early, with players looking to exploit the short stacks’ desperation rather than tangling with the chip leaders.

Andrews’ 22-big-blind stack requires a shift toward push-fold strategy in many situations, though she retains enough chips to pick her spots carefully rather than moving all-in at the first opportunity. The key for Andrews will be identifying optimal reshove spots against the chip leaders’ opening ranges, particularly when holding hands that play well against their likely continuation ranges.

Kenney’s 7.4-big-blind stack demands immediate action. With the blinds and ante consuming over 10% of her stack each orbit, she cannot afford to wait for premium hands. Optimal short-stack play at this stage involves shoving a wide range from late position and looking for spots to resteal against aggressive openers. Any fold equity combined with the dead money in the pot makes these moves profitable with a much wider range than recreational players typically realize.

The bubble factor also influences every decision at this final table. With significant pay jumps between positions, particularly at the top, players must balance chip accumulation against survival. This dynamic typically benefits the chip leaders, who can exploit their opponents’ reluctance to bust before securing a better payday.

Reading The Field & Table Dynamics

The player composition at this final table creates unique strategic considerations. Foxen brings elite tournament credentials and recent series success, having already captured Event #4 during this USPO. Her experience navigating high-pressure final tables makes her extremely dangerous, particularly from a strong chip position. Opponents will need to avoid marginal confrontations with her unless they hold significant equity.

Andrews enters with momentum and motivation, playing for both the tournament title and the series championship. This dual incentive structure could influence her risk tolerance—she needs a victory to claim the leaderboard, which might encourage more aggressive play than ICM considerations alone would suggest. Observant opponents might exploit this by giving her credit for stronger ranges when she applies pressure.

Coleman’s chip lead and recent Poker Masters championship demonstrate his ability to close out tournaments. Chip leaders often struggle with overplaying their advantage, but Coleman’s track record suggests he understands when to apply pressure and when to let shorter stacks eliminate each other. His position to Foxen’s left or right will significantly impact the table’s power dynamics.

Elias brings perhaps the deepest final table experience of anyone in the field, with multiple World Poker Tour titles and countless deep runs. His understanding of ICM and final table dynamics makes him particularly dangerous in the middle stages when pay jumps create maximum fold equity. Players should expect Elias to identify and exploit the bubble points between each payout level.

The presence of multiple couples in the series—Foxen and her husband Alex both won events, as did Andrews and Wilson—adds an interesting narrative element, though professional players maintain strict separation between personal relationships and optimal strategy at the table. Still, the psychological dynamics of partners competing for the same title create compelling storylines.

How To Apply This To Your Game

Recreational players can extract valuable lessons from this final table structure, even if they’re not playing $25,000 buy-in events. Understanding how stack sizes dictate strategy remains crucial at every level of tournament poker.

When you find yourself among the chip leaders, resist the temptation to play every pot. Your advantage comes from applying selective pressure, particularly against medium stacks trying to ladder up the payout structure. Focus on attacking players who have shown tightness or expressed concern about pay jumps. The big stack’s power lies in making opponents uncomfortable, not in seeing every flop.

From a middle stack position, identify which opponents you can profitably engage with and which confrontations to avoid. Generally, you want to target shorter stacks who might fold too often and avoid major pots against similar or larger stacks unless you hold premium holdings. Look for opportunities to accumulate chips without risking your tournament life—small ball poker becomes optimal in these situations.

Short-stack play requires mathematical precision and emotional courage. Many players wait too long to make their move, allowing their stack to dwindle below the threshold where they have fold equity. When you drop below 15 big blinds, begin expanding your shoving range significantly. Study push-fold charts to understand which hands become profitable all-ins from each position. The mathematics often demands moves that feel uncomfortable but are demonstrably correct.

Pay attention to your opponents’ tendencies and adjust accordingly. If someone has shown willingness to call light, tighten your bluffing range against them. If another player has folded to multiple resteal attempts, target them more frequently. Final table success comes from exploiting opponent weaknesses while minimizing your own vulnerabilities.

Finally, manage your mental game when playing for significant money or titles. Andrews faces the pressure of chasing the series championship while short-stacked—a situation that could induce either overly tight or recklessly aggressive play. Maintaining emotional equilibrium and making decisions based on mathematics rather than desired outcomes separates winning players from the rest.

Key Takeaways

• Three women reached the $25K US Poker Open final table, continuing a series trend where female pros have claimed two of nine titles so far
• Stack sizes ranging from 7.4 to 78 big blinds create distinct strategic requirements for each player, from push-fold decisions to deep-stacked maneuvering
• Cherish Andrews can still capture the series championship with a victory, despite entering 213 points behind her partner Brock Wilson on the leaderboard
• ICM considerations at final tables require balancing chip accumulation against survival, with pay jumps creating exploitable fold equity for aggressive players
• Short-stack play demands mathematical precision and wider shoving ranges than most recreational players employ, particularly below 15 big blinds
• The combination of elite talent, significant payouts, and series championship implications creates maximum pressure for optimal decision-making

Frequently Asked Questions

How does ICM affect final table strategy?

Independent Chip Model (ICM) calculations assign real money value to tournament chips based on payout structure and remaining stacks. At final tables, ICM typically encourages more conservative play than chip-EV considerations alone would suggest, because the risk of elimination costs you not just chips but also the opportunity to ladder up to better payouts. Short stacks should generally play tighter than their chip stack alone would indicate, while big stacks can exploit this dynamic by applying pressure. However, when playing for additional prizes like the series championship, optimal strategy may deviate from pure ICM considerations.

What stack size requires switching to push-fold strategy?

Most poker theorists agree that push-fold strategy becomes optimal somewhere between 10-15 big blinds, though the exact threshold depends on factors like opponent tendencies, position, and payout structure. Below 10 big blinds, you generally lack the stack depth to make profitable post-flop plays, and the pot odds combined with fold equity make shoving a wider range more profitable than a raise-fold approach. Players often make the mistake of waiting too long to employ push-fold tactics, allowing their stack to become so short they lose all fold equity.

How significant is the female representation at this final table?

Having three women at a $25,000 buy-in final table represents notable progress in high-stakes poker, where female participation has historically been limited. While poker skill is gender-neutral, various social and structural factors have resulted in fewer women competing at the highest levels. The success of Foxen, Andrews, and Kenney—combined with the two titles already won by women during this series—demonstrates that female professionals compete effectively against any opposition when given opportunities. Their presence helps normalize women’s participation in high-stakes events and may encourage more female players to pursue poker professionally.

Final Thoughts

This $25,000 US Poker Open finale represents more than just another high-stakes tournament—it’s a snapshot of poker’s evolving landscape. The strong female representation at the final table, combined with the compelling series championship race between partners Andrews and Wilson, creates narrative intrigue that extends beyond the cards themselves.

From a strategic perspective, the final table offers a masterclass in how stack sizes dictate optimal play. Coleman and Foxen can leverage their big stacks to control the action, while Kenney must execute nearly flawless short-stack play to survive. The middle-stack players face perhaps the most complex decisions, balancing aggression against preservation as they navigate toward the top payouts.

Whether you’re playing $25,000 buy-ins or $25 tournaments, the fundamental principles remain constant: understand your stack’s strategic requirements, exploit opponent tendencies, and make mathematically sound decisions regardless of emotional pressure. The players at this final table have mastered these concepts through years of study and experience—but every poker player can apply the same frameworks to improve their results.