Although I agree that checking back is fine, i think that saying the hand isnt vulnerable is wrong. Most made hands are vulnerable. Thats sort of the entire concept behind a made hand, its already there, its not super likely to get better. If you are HU and have KQ and flop comes Q85ss thats vulnerable, because your hand isnt likely to improve and has plenty of cards that hurt you, even if just a little bit. You dont need 29 cards to say a hand is vulnerable, not that I agree on 29 (for example, plenty of those are hearts which probably helps more than hurts).

hand protection of a vulnerable hand is a very common reason to bet, and it clearly applies here. There are reasons not to bet, such as its 5 way and you only have a kinda crappy made hand.

Grunching:

Hate the river bet. What are you trying to get value from? All the FD's and SD's wiffed.

I would have bet/folded the turn for $25. Get value from the draws, which are most of what you are ahead of. After that , I'm done.

AP, I'm calling the river with: 1) the perceived weakness of your sizing, 2) looseness of V's straddling from UTG with a $100 stack (he may like to jam it pre), and oh so many draws that missed and could be bluffing.

Depends on the villains. Some people are more likely to be afraid to play with you if you have that image. As a result they are more likely to back down if you raise there. And at 1-3 people don’t really play back at you that much IMO. Even the regs might tighten up and wait for bigger hands.

The people that do “play back” are more likely to make some loose calls at that level from my experiences.

With that said I don’t know who was at your table.

IF you use a definition where almost any hand is vulnerable then the definition is a useless one. It’s obviously relative. If most hands are vulnerable and most hands should be C-Bet or raised to protect then we’re just going back to 2010.