[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine...don't play against opponents who systematically like to make pots big. Don't look for big payouts, such as playing multiway hands where some investment might be needed, but has big payouts. Don't invest money trying to trap opponents.

Look for players, that like you, bet within a tight range. And just maybe - miraculously - you'll still be +EV. But at the very least, your s.d. will be somewhat smaller - even if you are probably losing money.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is that you think that this is the best way to reduce variance. Maybe numerically it is, but you can usually acceptably reduce variance without affecting win rate very much - it's quite simple.
* Don't press small edges, like, don't bet/3bet when you are a 55:45 favorite.
* Don't aggressively value bet the river
* Fold more when you're in doubt

[ QUOTE ]

Skalansky is a mathmatician. And sometimes mathmaticians like to make points, rather than focus on worthwhile advice. His point is yes, you can control your s.d. to some extent. But its like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. He can't mathmatically prove that your chances of winning the fight are still good. And that's why its bad advice. If Skalansky had any great tricks for winning while playing a lower s.d. game I'm sure he would have shared. But alas all such tricks seem to have unworthwhile tradeoffs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is also a poker player, a poker writer, and in general a poker authority. Not everyone loves his advice, and I don't think he's perfect, but I think contemplating what he says is worthwhile. There is much of his advice that I reject, because I don't feel it's as applicable as it once was. The games have changed, the players have changed, adjustments need to be made.