[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet/call in that situation.

Even if he is taggish, I think you do get called by ace high type hands here on that board quite a bit.
He probably does not have a jack. He might well have a 2. If he has a jack he probably will not raise the river as he did not raise the turn.

If you check planning to call, he probably would not bluff. Thus you would give him a very clear value bet.

In rough numbers:
If you check/call you are probably ahead only 20% of the time.
If you bet and he calls, you are probably ahead 60% of the time. Say in 18% of the cases he hold a 6, then he raises and you'd call, so in 18% when you are behind, you lose an extra bet. Say he will also raise the river with a worse hand in 3% of the cases. Thus we might as well discount your value betting equity by 15%. So your value betting equity is 45%, still a lot better than check/call.

The extent by which bet/call is better than check/call using these numbers if quite big, so even if we adjust the number significantly, bet/calling should still be better than check/calling.
Even adjusting these numbers

[/ QUOTE ]

i just did a numerical example that proved check calling is always better than bet/calling. my assumptions were very different though. i think you are giving BK's opponent way too little credit. i think its by far the most likely situation that BK's opponenet has an 8 or a 6 rather than a jack or a 2 or Ahigh. if villian DOES have a 2 though, bet calling is probably better, but if he never bluff raises the river then you will lose every single time you call the raise, not 80% as you suggested above.

so two numerical examples give exact opposite answers. i vote for check calling in this spot though b/c i give villian more credit.

Barron