[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, if I bet the turn, and he raises (probably meaning a Q or K), then I still have 7 outs, and I have to call because I'm now getting 8:1 on my call.

I'm wondering if this is a situation where I should "tend to check with outs, bet with no outs".

M

[/ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe. When you bet with outs you have to win the pot right there less to make a profit because you can improve on the river even if he calls. Without outs, like a PP, you should tend to check if you are unsure were you are in order to ensure a 1BB showdown and induce river bluffs. Of course you have to weigh that against protecting you hand from a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been looking in TOP and I'm really trying to find this quote.

I understand the principle that the more I have a chance to outdraw villain, the more likely I should be to bet. But there's also the principle that it's good to bet when you are able to fold to the raise, right? When you bet, and know if you're raised that you're behind, yet you still have to call, that's an incentive to check, no?

M