Playing the nuts against passive opponents

[soah]

The other day there was a thread in this forum where the poster rivered a very disguised straight against a passive opponent who was likely to hold a very strong hand. Many people suggested making a moderate bet and hoping for the passive player to raise. I said this was crazy because passive players will just call on the end with some amazingly strong hands. Sometimes they will even check behind with them.

I was playing 2/4 at Bodog just now and had QTs in the BB against 4 limpers. Flop was J9x rainbow. Bodog players love to call and love to underbet (and some of them love to raise the flop with top pair) so I figured the cheapest way to see a turn was by checking. I did, some others did, and someone bet $6. I didn't have any significant read on him. I called and one terrible EP limper called. Turn was an 8. I don't want it checked around, so I bet $25. Seems like a nice bet to string them along. They both call. River is a 4. I bet $75 because that's about what the terrible EP limper has left, and I think it's about the most I can get from a marginal made hand. EP limper folds and the other player calls with a set of nines... the third nuts. He had $140 left.

[PoBoy321]

I was the guy in the original thread, and I think that you've got a point about passive players being far more willing to simply call off their entire stacks than raise at any point with the near nuts. There have been a couple of threads about playing monster hands, and the advice is almost unequivocally "Bet, bet, bet because they won't do it for you," and I think that in most cases that's absolutely true.

I think in your case, however, the villain hasn't shown any strength at any point in the hand, so your value bet on the end was justified.