Villain after 300 hands: vpip 21,pfr 16, rfi MP 10, cb 50, ct 100, wts 19, wsd 100, AF 3
I think this villain is pretty tight, only opens 10% from MP, went to showdown only 19%, won a 100% on showdown.

I think i did not play this hand agressive enough, am i right or are there some advantages playing like this?

The villain is pretty tight from MP so i know i'm playing against a strong range here and i think its correct not to 3bet with my hand here? Anyway when the flop comes ace high i expect the villain to have allot of good aces in his range, normaly with my gutshot and backdoor FD i would check raise here and have allot of turns to barrel. But i was scared of the villains strong range and i did not wan't to get 3bet by the villain and not see a turn or river anymore. So i picked the passive way and check called. The turn is a great card for me, i check called again because my equity got even better and the villain seemed to bet a good size to protect his strong hand. At the river i hit the 2nd nuts and i check expecting the villain to bet thinly with his good hands so i could raise him since he can't really put me on a backdoor FD here right ( i'm not saying he is gonna call me allot of the times)?

Anyway i think this hand was played badly. It was in the end of my session and it was played way to passive. I think the flop is a check raise, turn is a great barrel card and river is a easy shove. If the flop was called like in this case then the turn is probably a check raise right? So what do you guys think, isn't it that bad of a play because after check raising perhaps getting it in would leave me playing against the top of my opponents range where i'm behind against? Or should i have been more agressive the whole hand or at least in some part of the hand? Thanks!