No stats but the whole table was playing fairly tight overall. That's what threw me off a bit in this hand.

Seat 1: johnno4 ($115.10 in chips)
Seat 2: MaAnthony ($91.10 in chips)
Seat 3: burghsbus1 ($100 in chips)
Seat 4: waffle87 ($119.10 in chips)
Seat 5: KingMidas83 ($106.65 in chips)
Seat 6: DocReno ($41.50 in chips)
johnno4: posts small blind $0.50
MaAnthony: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to MaAnthony
burghsbus1: folds
waffle87: calls $1
KingMidas83: folds
DocReno: calls $1
johnno4: folds
MaAnthony: checks
*** FLOP ***
MaAnthony: bets $3
waffle87: calls $3
DocReno: calls $3
*** TURN *** -
MaAnthony: bets $8
waffle87: calls $8
DocReno: folds
*** RIVER *** -
MaAnthony: checks
waffle87: bets $7
MaAnthony: calls $7

I thought about not being a vagina and leading the river, but I thought there was more value in allowing some hands to bluff with a check/call. I didn't think there was much value in raising the river though.

Thoughts?

Who leads the river? Who folds to his river bet (seemed absurdly small)?

Betting the river is much better than check calling.

Yup. You get more value out of hands you're ahead of that might otherwise check behind (or bet something really small to which you can't really raise anyway) plus you lose the same to a flush if you were to check-call (given that you fold to a river raise), and a river raise is like always a flush anyway.