I guess I'm the only one, but I'd bet this.
I figure the only advantage to checking comes when the SB has us beat and it gets checked down. I would assume any hand that has us beat would bet behind if we check, and we're going to call anyway, so it's the same outcome.
If they're really loose-passive, they're probably not going to bluff with a busted draw if you check. Plus, everyone would be getting > 11:1 to call the bluff. It's pretty much a suicide bluff. Same goes for the prospects of being raised with nothing if you bet. Plus, you've max bet every street after the flop, so I don't know why a passive player would suddenly decide to bluff.
What do we get value out of if we bet? T + low, 8x, 69, 67, 99, 77. Again, they're getting 11:1 and they're loose-passive, so I'd expect low pairs to call here. As for a surface analysis of what can have us beat here, because of the dangerous texture of the board on the turn, I'd expect the big hands to raise almost always. I'd say UTG could have slowplayed (foolishly IMO) 97 or hell maybe even 75, or someone could have KsXs. Also, there's a remote chance of a stronger T who got scared and didn't raise.
So I think it warrants a bet/fold.
Edit: Oh yeah, so I kind of disagree with F Paulsson's analysis. I think a check makes more sense heads up, and a bet makes more sense multi-way (mostly because of the huge pot odds
). A heads up, smaller pot situation is more likely to induce a bluff. The big multiway pot is going to scare other players out of making a risky bluff, but they may call weak because of the huge odds. I think what he's trying to say is that there are many players in the pot so our hand is less likely to be good, but I'm inclined to go with my read. Not to mention I'm probably going to donk off if someone else bets anyway, so why not do the betting myself?