I know checking back the flop is what the cool kids do now (all the players in these hands are somewhat cool, AFAIK... these are not my hands), but can't wrap my head around some stuff here. I realize the boards are good for checking back, but isn't this a bit much? Also, can't find the logic behind some river decisions. Thoughts appreciated.
FWIW, "Hero" also checks back hands to give up turns on boards like these... so this might be a matter of some larger strategy scheme.

1)Flop?
V2 posts SB 0.25 BB, V1 posts BB 0.5 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 0.75 BB) Hero has A K

Hero raises to 1 BB, fold, V1 calls 0.5 BB

Flop: (2.25 BB, 2 players) 4 2 5
V1 checks, Hero checks

2)Flop (and turn?)?
V2 posts SB 0.25 BB, V1 posts BB 0.5 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 0.75 BB) Hero has 6 5

Hero raises to 1 BB, fold, V1 calls 0.5 BB

Flop: (2.25 BB, 2 players) 9 4 7
V1 checks, Hero checks

Turn: (2.25 BB, 2 players) J
V1 checks, Hero checks

3)Flop and turn?
V1 posts SB 0.25 BB, V2 posts BB 0.5 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 0.75 BB) Hero has Q A

Hero raises to 1 BB, V1 calls 0.75 BB, V2 calls 0.5 BB

Flop: (3 BB, 3 players) J 4 3
V1 checks, V2 checks, Hero checks

Turn: (3 BB, 3 players) T
V1 checks, V2 bets 1 BB, Hero raises to 2 BB

4)Flop and river?
V2 posts SB 0.25 BB, V1 posts BB 0.5 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 0.75 BB) Hero has 9 T

Hero raises to 1 BB, V2 calls 0.75 BB, fold

Flop: (2.5 BB, 2 players) T J 9
V2 checks, Hero checks

Turn: (2.5 BB, 2 players) 8
V2 checks, Hero checks

River: (2.5 BB, 2 players) 8
V2 checks, Hero bets 1 BB

5)River?
V1 posts SB 0.25 BB, V2 posts BB 0.5 BB
Pre Flop: (pot: 0.75 BB) Hero has Q J

Hero raises to 1 BB, V1 calls 0.75 BB, fold

Flop: (2.5 BB, 2 players) 3 3 K
V1 checks, Hero checks

Turn: (2.5 BB, 2 players) 3
V1 checks, Hero checks

River: (2.5 BB, 2 players) T
V1 checks, Hero bets 1 BB

I'd cbet them all readless, but I'll contrive reads that could make me check in these spots:

1) "bet 3 bets MPTK on turn after I check back flop"

2) "very passive ridiculously showdown bound"

3) I'm drawing a blank.

4) "will only play KQ."

5) "super tight passive uncapped small blind coldcalling range, very showdown bound"

The other players in these hands are often quite uncool. Not that it effects hero's decisions.

not a fan of 4) and river bet in 5) seems kinda meh

apart from that i think they make sense vs the right kind of thinking players

I disagree with every single check back in these hands. not sure who this cool kid are but I must be uncool. The check back on 4. is quite awful. hand 1 and 3 should be a b3b.

first one is bad because hero obviously misses value on the flop, that he/she doenst get back on turns imo.
I dont think you get lead into on turns like A,K,3 too often, that leaves 8 turns, that you wont get lead into on 100% of the time for raising.
Plus you could go bet bet bet on some run outs unimproved.
cbet seems way superior.

no time for the other hands
gotta go watch football

The only one that makes any sense as a check back, from my perspective, is #5. Even then, I don't understand the river bet; wouldn't we be checking this hand because of UISD value and being the very hand that serves no purpose to bet in a vacuum (better calls, worse folds)? Are we expecting a wtf-call from J-hi, or a fold from A-hi? Obviously these are not intended for OP as they aren't his hands.

lets see, heres my estimation of the worst plays in order

turn raise in hand 3
river bet in hand 5
flop check in hand 3
flop check in hand 1
turn check in hand 4

all those seem just atrocious. river bet in hand 5 is ok vs a very specific type of opponent so i just highly doubt you are against him. esp since your jack kicker is counterfeited.

likewise the hand 3 turn raise. there are just so very few players that are ever bet folding a better hand on that turn.

i would bet the flop in the 65 hand obv but i dont think checking is horrible. but i dont understand why the turn is checked.

hand 4 is the only flop that checking would appeal to me with any regularity.

I wouldn't play any of these hands like this. There is some potential deception and helping protect the weak hands that want to check back these flops, but I'm skeptical.

no2 seems the hardest to justify whatsoever.

I'm behind in the poker language...

''AFAIK'' means?
''FWIW'' means?

LOL...Victor is awesome

Very interesting... do you apply this in NL?

As far as I know, for what it's worth, IMO.

I'd pretty much agree (though the H2 double checkback line with 6 high oesd needs a mention imo), other than "turn check in hand 4"... if I checked back the flop, I would give villain one more chance of bluffing or catching up in the tiny pot, very static board. But you're betting?

Thanks Pasita!

The only hands i'd ever see myself checking in the limits i'm playing at would be;

2. Against very loose player with almost no fold equity
5. Against loose aggressive player who check\raises a lot and puts in bluffs on the turn and river with complete air. I might just check the flop and call down turn and river bluff with Q high.

I think checking anything else is loosing too much value, at low limits anyways.

Any thoughts? Is checking 2 and 5 correct in some cases?

Definitely, but then i would say they are all fine in some cases
Except for 4. That one i would never consider checking.

Checking flop in Hand 5 seems perfect to me vs unknown, assuming we check back anything... it's the river bet that baffled me. But looking at some combos, it might very well be that villain has to call this with J high, making it a good value bet, even as we block his Jacks. This assuming that Villain only has A3 for slowplay, A4 to represent his timid Aces, would have bet all pairs and 7-highs by river, which makes the ranges surpisingly tight in a 5*check scenario.

For 2) I assume hero is planning to bet pretty much ~any river.

cbet all of them. you're missing tons of value and not protecting your hands. hand 2 is the biggest botch. you have absolutely 0 showdown value and a ton of pot+fold equity. use it!