Check hands with outs, bet hands with no/few outs?

[teddyFBI]

Many books (including HEFAP, I believe) suggest -- as a general strategy when a scare card falls on the turn -- to check hands that have outs, but bet hands with few or no outs. Do I have this correct?

Because intuitively, I would have thought that betting hands WITH outs on the turn would be a better strategy, because you don't mind so much getting check-raised, since you still probably have many outs to a winner...or is the reasoning of the strategy that you bet hands with no outs, because if you get check-raised, it's easy to toss it away...?

[TStoneMBD]

the line with checking behind with outs is often misused and miscommunicated. a good example of when to implement this strategy is when you have 99 on a board of KT63. it is better to bet the turn and fold to a raise in most situations, than it is to check the turn and call a river bet. however, when you have a marginal hand with a draw, and are considering betting the turn, you will often be betting when behind. getting checkraised with outs costs you 2BB to see your draw, when you could have just checked and paid 0BB instead.