[rigmarole]

I'm either very misunderstood... very wrong and even possibly very misunderstood and very wrong, (and I probably do not help it) at this point I am OK with any of these possibilities as sooner or later I will get it.

I do realize the hand for what it was (probably not nearly as intimately as many of you. But is'nt that why I am here?)

5 streets and no aggression from his opponents whatsoever... not even a spitball?

By the river he had the low flush. What is the probability he was beaten by a bigger flush. Pretty good I would imagine. What is the probability that he was beaten by a bigger flush but not one holding an ace or a high card? Now given the passiveness of his opponents what is the likely hood that he would have won by checking it down as opposed to betting? I don't know the answer to any of these... but should he not make any effort to protect his hand given the tendancies his opponents shown?

If you are against a table full of bad opponents especially especially loose and pasive should you not go after them?

Please show me where this line of thinking is wrong so that I may correct.


Thanks

Rig