Does Patrik show his hands often? I feel like this was QQ99 exactly

Your logic is obviously good but a spot OOP 500BB deep in a game where Patrik probably doesn't play with any of the players on a regular basis, he doesn't need to factor in any sort of balance, etc. I actually think his line is pretty great given stack depths.

Pretty much never, but I asked to see it so he showed

Curious about that as well. What do ppl think with him showing Q9, his other two cards were. Could he have blockers to the straight and tries to use those later in some way? Actually him having QJJ9 makes sense as it takes a lot of the legit hands hero could barrel with out of his range. So he might try to induce a spew.

well the bet is a given, are you saying you cannot bet/fold?

The fold should be clear unless I have missed something with stack sizes, things like Q5 and 97 are light enough,,, the weight of 'sickness' is the only variable which can cause bet ship>bet fold and is one of those moment 'this hand' and never repeated phenomena. It would be so difficult to define or show a conclusion with ev proof, I know it is a mistake but I like to round weightings pretty signiifcantally and this involves making alot of 1:99 into 100:0, 60:40 into 50:50 the reasoning is that in the long run the costs of doing so will balance with the benefit of doing so, aswell as the locations being subjective and wrong equally anyway.... if the player is knowledgeble enough to find pretty reasonable at estimating mid point/pivot approximations in ratios using the available information.

So here I fold because most variables are on the side of fold,,,, (weak-split equity with a high freq of weak) rather than because ev says so, I can't really trust ev as much as a 'mode' average in such spots, ev is more of the mean, and the mean is bull$hit like aiev is bull$****

Aiev is only bs when it's lower than actual winnings

in any finite sample there is a >0% chance that the winnings line is closer to the illusionary ev than AIEV when there is incomplete information, AIEV only takes into account a hand opposed to a range.... was just referencing two ways of perceiving the distribution, modal and mean (in long term the modals will form their own mean, a mean specific to one hand is not accurate). I think the master players define modal points in a distribution before applying a mean, good players use only a mean... it is relevent because you can't have a 9.5 of clubs, it is irrelevant because you can't perfectly weight a range to a significant figure just like hoiw long is a piece of string and can two instances occur simultaneously. Just saying there are cirumstances when perceiving the distribution in a modal manner is better than in a mean. I don't really know fully what I am on about it is very much in progress but it relates to there being 5 outcomes with 3 winning and two losing and needing a 50%- there is 10% of value to be obtained when a 50% is impossible to occur as the distribution is in factors of 1/5 (which is completely to anything discussed yes but I ramble)

Anyway I don't want to derail further, jsut saying that where ev is impossible to define it is best to round 'modal' and the mode is to fold. Much of poker is completely unique, this situation will never occur again so I use mode. Mean can also be biast, you can make it whatever you want, which manifests in people making bad decisions due to fallacy, ('I can add these combos even though it is very light and then it is a call' opposed to rounding those combos to 0)

e: to explain further before I finish, the reply was about 'being half way there' - (9.5 of clubs) - I believe this modal perception is the also first instinct in a decision.

Fold man...

I feel like this entire thread is a level.

Getting 500bbs or whatever in with top and middle with no redraw? CMON!
If you're behind, you're drawing ****ing dead. He never has a set or top two here? Look at the board makeup and the fact that he's OOP. C/Cing with a made hand here is something a LOT of live players do from time to time because they don't want to play a huge pot OOP, to disguise their hand, and to get much better equity on the turn.

Checking the turn isn't bad either. Pot control, disguises your hand and makes it look like a draw which causes him to bluff less rivers. Not saying I would check, but there's certainly an argument for it.

...now fold.

If you even considered shipping Q7 here, then Patrick Antonius is beating the piss out of you in the meta-game and in all likelyhood you should go play someone else.

How can you guys not bet the turn here? Whether or not to b/c or b/f is going to be more dependent on how wide he thinks your range is here. If you're view on him and his view of you are accurate I think it's a pretty good fold.

Edit: wow didn't realize how late I was to this

checking the turn here would be really awful imo.

Having said that as i bet I'd defo be thinking (please don't pot) the jam is pretty gross and super close but I would imagine PA thinks you're more likely to fold the type of hand you have than get $50k in with it given that there is a $5k max buyin and doubt-less quite a bit of value at the table (that you'd be more +EV maintaining a $40k stack vs the weaker opponents, than taking a marginal spot vs him here and having to go back to a $5k stack) so I think this certainly opens him up a little but anything he jams has bucket loads of equity...

I'd get it in personally but think folding is pretty shrewd just because of having to return to a $5k stack.

+1, and +1 to edit

to put mrtea's point differently; putting in the second bet with 2pr+ on this board is going to dominate all your other strategic options if opponent plays reasonable, id guess. so, you bet turn. your range is going to have plenty of hands with >33% equity such that bet/folding a hand "this strong" isn't wildly exploitable. so just decide whether or not you have enough equity vs his range and make a decision. you can't be wrong by much either way.