in the bolded part tho, you beat all his weaker hands

how can this be justification for pf being ok? Against really polarized 3 betting ranges A9o is gonna blow, and even against fairly non polarized ranges its gonna suck as well. Just 4 bet it.

Coming from IFS it's not surprising this is a backwards hand (not an insult, just never seen you post any hand where you took a passive line)

+1 for thinking betting A9 on the flop is silly and absurdly unbalanced. Are you bluffing here with 77? Are you betting KJ/KQ for value? 3 streets?

Does it matter aginst someone who I haven't been in a similar spot before?

Well I think if you haven't been in a similar spot with them and don't have a good read of how they play you should default to something more balanced than betting A9 here.

Apart from preflop I think it's really standard from both players.

I prefer betting flop as well (swede's POV) cause people rarely balances good enough in this spot and we can give him hell on a lot of turn and rivers.
If we check flop we have to call pretty much any turn and river so I rather let him do the guesswork since we can rep a wider range.

OK, I've drank a bottle of wine but here's my thoughts

If you are assuming that villains entire range contains either weak showdown or a c/f range and nothing slowplayed (or rarely/imbalanced as it is with most players) , then I would say that your A9 hand is doing pretty well.
I would also bet the flop with your hand though for slightly different reasons.
At this stage in the hand, and with the actual hand that you've got, it would not have crossed my mind to begin some kind of 3 bet bluff, I just would not feel the need to do so with this hand, which I would expect to be about equal to the strength of villains range. Instead I would only be thinking about the best way to get to showdown with this hand.

In spots like this where it feels like betting has 0 ev, I still prefer betting over checking for a couple of reasons. Generally, as part of an overall gameplan strategy I generally prefer betting and being aggressive, so thats one small part of it, but mainly its because if betting the flop has 0ev, then at least by betting the flop, I am going to be the one with choices on the turn.
So basically I think betting and checking on the flop are equal, but betting the flop gives me a slight advantage throughout the rest of the hand.

When the turn brings the Tc, I would be concerned about TT getting there and 9T and would definately not be turning my hand into a bluff on this card. I honestly dont think KK-JJ are folding to another bet very often anyway, especially vs you. So I would be checking behind here.

River obv nothing folds for less than half pot

I dont understand how you can say that betting A9 is unbalanced?

I mean betting 3 streets with A9 (I.e. bluffing with A9) is unbalanced

I still dont get it,plz explain

He means (I think) that if you are 3barreling A9, then you are also probably 3barreling all your air hands and your draw hands, because A9 is one of the best to get to showdown cheaper with. So basically you are 3 barreling an exploitably large range when checked to. Hence unbalanced.

Who's saying that you have keep barreling if the turn is a blank? If we bet the flop I think this turn (T) is a must bet. It's unfortunate that we are too shallow to go for 3 streets though.

I think this is a good spot to check back the A9 and basically hope for an ace to turn and cash in when villain starts betting.

Not that anyone seems to care but I messed up the name's in my post at #56

im def new here but as played on the flop what if we led small to induce a bluff from this player with the intentions of 3 bet getting it in. I think this looks like flushdraw a lot and gets him to still pay us off with some hands we have dominated....thoughts?