Final Table Takedown: Niall Farrell Analyzes Range Balancing and Bet Sizing Versus Tough Opponents

Niall Farrell is a very successful high-stakes tournament regular on the world circuit. He hails from Dumfries, Scotland. He recently moved back home after spending time in Glasgow and Calgary, Canada. Farrell graduated with a law degree from Stirling University. He began playing poker for fun with friends, then migrated to online tournaments and cash games.

The most recent win to go in his trophy case was the WSOPE High Roller event for $871,000. Later in that same week he took home $279,000 in the WSOPE main event for fifth place. Farrell has more than $2 million in online tournament career cashes and more than $4.5 million in live cashes.

Event: 2017 World Series of Poker Europe Main Event
Players: 529
Entry: $12,001
First Prize: $1,301,815
Finish: 5th

Key Concepts: Equity denial; Range analysis; Range balancing

Craig Tapscott: You were coming into this WSOPE main event on a heater having just won the $25,000 High Roller event. How did you feel about your play overall in the main event? And how does it play different from the high roller event in terms of your approach, if at all?

Niall Farrell: I thought I played the main event very well for the most part. In the main event your edge tends to be significantly larger, so it’s my belief that “tournament management” becomes much more important, i.e. trying to play smaller pots vs the better players left in the tourney and perhaps sacrificing small amounts of expected value vs. them in specific pots in exchange for lower variance situations vs. them and stack protection.

CT: OK. Let’s get into the first hand you want to share.

Kempe raises to 34,000 from hijack. Bicknell calls from the button. Farrell raises to 152,000 holding A K from the small blind.

CT: A-K is misplayed by so many players. Can you tell me your thinking on why this bet sizing? And your plan with the hand if Rainer rearises? Are you jamming for certain or playing with a bit of caution?

NF: I think a lot of players use too small a sizing when making three-bets and squeezing. The idea of making a reraise is you want to make your opponent(s) fold a reasonable amount of the time and charge them to continue with their range vs. your perceived stronger range. A lot of the time players make a three-bet sizing where against a reasonable opening range from whichever seat your opponent is opening, they have almost an easy auto-continue with around 90 percent of their range. But that is not what you want to happen. Since I was out of position versus two good players, I wanted to charge them a reasonable amount to continue without costing myself too many chips when I am bluffing I think this bet sizing accomplishes that goal. With Rainer being aggressive and capable, I will 100 percent be going with the hand facing any further action from him. And that is despite what I said about tourney management earlier – my hand is just way too strong.

NF: How does your image factor into how you play this hand against players who know your aggressive nature?

NF: I would squeeze preflop here vs. everyone, bar the absolute filthiest of nits.
Ho calls from the big blind. Kempe calls. Bicknell calls.

Flop: J 10 7 (pot: 626,000)

CT: That’s a few more callers than I am sure you expected. Sure, you’ve got the A, but you can’t be too crazy about this flop with three callers. And Maria’s cold call has to look pretty strong. What’s your read at this point?

NF: This was a super weird spot and not one that comes up very often at all.

CT: What do you think of her cold call range?

NF: When Maria cold calls the three-bet I assigned her a range of around 9-9 to Q-Q and perhaps some A-Q suited as well. I think the cold call makes her range fairly defined and I would personally play a raise or fold strategy in Maria’s spot.

CT: And the range for your two other callers?

NF: Rainer and Kristen also have fairly condensed ranges which are strong, but not super strong. And unfortunately for me most of their ranges are condensed around this board.

CT: It would seem like an easy shove then with the A.

NF: Yes. I went for an all-in, as on this board versus three opponents it’s going to be almost impossible for me to find hands that will be winning bet/folds. So, I believe all my bluffs will have relatively high equity, so I may as well maximize fold equity also. I spoke to a few players about the hand afterwards and it may have been better to have a substantial checking range on this board (with one very good player suggesting a range-check strategy, and another saying that perhaps shoving Q Qx and K Kx and some A Kx and checking with A Ax etc., may be a better play).

Ho folds. Kempe folds. Bicknell folds.

NF: As played I’m fortunate that I got three folds from 10-10 (Maria) 9-9x (Rainer) and A J (Kristen). I ended up looking like a genius at the time, but on reflection I think my strategy may have been slightly flawed.

CT: Wow! Maria chose to fold a set. What do you think of the fold? Obviously, it seemed to work out for her. She went deep into the final table.

NF: I think with Maria’s hand you have to go with it. It’s not an ideal spot, and I understand why she elected to make the fold. I just think with the price she’s getting and her equity in the pot, she just has to call it off and face the very daunting task of trying to beat me in an all-in. I will say I believe it is closer than it looks on first glance. Overall, I’d say it’s a small to medium mistake and I have certainly made bigger ones in my career, a few of them televised. Maria is a fantastic player and even fantastic players make small mistakes sometimes.

Farrell wins the pot of 626,000.

Key Concepts: Bet Sizing; Hand Equity

Osinovski raises to 155,000 from the button. Farrell calls from the big blind holding K 7.

Flop: 10 9 9 (pot: 420,000)

Farrell checks. Osinovski bets 150,000.

CT: Can you continue with king high here? What’s the plan?

NF: Well versus this bet sizing folding our hand is simply not an option, the question becomes how do we continue, raise or call? I think with the over card and the fact that king high can just be the best hand here a decent amount of the time, I want to be mostly calling with this combination. Better hands to raise with could be the likes of 8-6, etc., which are very unlikely to be good at showdown.

Farrell calls.

Turn: 6 (pot: 720,000)

CT: Good card for you.

NF: Yes. This gives me a gutter and flush draw.

Farrell checks. Osinovski bets 300,000.

NF: On this turn card facing this small bet size, we have a similar situation the flop, and we cannot fold our hand. And the question becomes call or raise? With ace-high or king-high flush draws here versus the button, there is still a good chance that we have the best hand, even with no pair. So…

Farrell calls.

NF: I elected to call again here. If I had a hand like J 8, I would be looking to raise the turn, especially after watching the previous day’s stream. I had seen Osinovski make some very low equity double barrels with hands like K-5, etc. which it would be a disaster to call with J 8 here and lose to K-5 on river blanks when it goes check, check.

River: 7 (pot: 1,320,000)

Farrell checks. Osinovski checks. Osinovski reveals Q 10 and wins the pot of 1,320,000.

NF: I think Q-10 is possibly too thin a turn value bet from him here on the 6. The 8-7 gets there, he blocks Q-J and Q-8 and he blocks a weaker 10-x hand. I will check-raise some 9-x hands on the flop here, but I will also check-call some combos as well, as I would with most of my 8-7 combos which are now straights. I also now turn a lot of combo draws which want to check-shove, so unless he’s just going to call it off, I think I would slightly prefer a check on the turn with his hand. Although, I will concede it is close. Unfortunately for myself it works out perfectly versus my actual hand and I lose the pot. ♠