[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the villain's pre-flop actions, all of these hands seem very unlikely to me. If he'd play KK-JJ this passively, is it fair to assume he'd play trips and flush-draws in the same manner?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a world of difference between him having trips or a flush and having jacks. If he made his flush, he would bet to get value out of it. He doesn't feel comfortable with his jacks enough to bet.

There are very few players who are going to draw to a flush and then check the turn and river when they make it. But there are many players who don't know how to play jacks (or queens or kings... or 2s) that they will default to check/call mode.

I still think any player who called nearly potsized bets on that flop and turn, yet never made a move on that turn... likely may call a value bet on the river.

The villain in this hand played his hand passively but couldn't find a fold earlier. There's a reasonable chance he still can't fold.

1/2 pot bet for value.

I reiterate... though this player was passive with his hand, I find the number of players who play trips, boat or flush this passive on all three streets to be rare enough to discount without a read. Most calling stations who call for any draw still bet when then they make their hands, particularly on the river.

There's nothing wrong, obviously, with checking behind on the river. Clearly its the safe move. But I value reads a lot and I think until someone's giving me information that they are so passive as to check their monster hands every street, the way this hand played, aces are looking good. And a person, particularly at these tables, who can't fold their pocket pair on the flop or turn, will often pay a reasonable sized bet on the river.