so DGAF, which side of the argument were you on?
Personally, I'm betting vs described villains.

I was on the bet side. My argument sounded a lot like mmix85's post. If it were heads up with V1 I would be more inclined to check (but would prob still bet). I used to pot control a lot but noluck17's podcast with Bart changed my view on that some. I think people (even some really good players) fear the c/r a lot more than they should. In the end, people just play pretty straightforward most of the time oop in big pots. Also, I think V2 provides a decent amount of protection against V1 going crazy/putting us in a bad spot.

If hero were TAG/it was assumed that flop did not hit his pfr range, it would be more of a check as well imo.

(just when I thought this thread/spot was solved, a good player comes in and says he doesn't hate checking, so idk, I guess it's still up for debate)

If we check this flop than our hand becomes a bluff catcher/very very thin value hand since both villains would expect us (correctly) to bet sets, straights, overpairs and big draws. If I were forced to check this flop for pot control (since I can't see any other reason to check this flop) I would rather do it with AA than 99.

Bet 3/4 pot

I am still curious on any argument that would make checking better than betting here. I really can't see it, but maybe I can be convinced.

Agreed. And I don't know **** about online players obv, but I think too eazy is a beast. Also, my friend who butchered this hand (imo) wins a lot.