Playing Axs in Early Position, NLH

[VegasRunner]

I don't think I've ever seriously disagreed with anything I've read by Sklansky until I began reading No Limit Hold em by Sklansky and Miller.

In his preflop strategy section, he refers to Axs as a "bread and butter" hand and he advises usually limping in with it in early position. I can imagine a game where this play would be profitable (specifically, againist a table of people who never raise preflop and also happen to be visually impaired), but generally speaking, even in games with small blinds ($1-$2), this play seems like it would have a negative expectation.

Here's my reasoning:

1. If someone behind you puts in a decent preflop raise, you almost have to fold b/c you are out of position and you probably aren't going to get the number of callers to justify chasing a flush draw. On top of that, there is a good chance that you are dominated.

2. If you flop an ace, it's has very little value. If you bet out, you will scare away everyone who doesn't have an ace and the only likely calls (or raises) will be from people who have (at least) a better kicker.

3. AND MOST IMPORTANT: I fully am aware that the real value of this hand is it's nut flush potiential, but even if the hand develops perfectly (no preflop raises, at least 2 of your suit flop, and a high card flops to give someone a strong second place hand) unless you are playing againist a total donk who will fail to notice three suited cards on the board, you're chances of cleaning out a large stack with this hand still seem incredibly low when you are playing it out of position. Even at low limits, EVERYONE notices 3 suited cards. I don't even think the very rare payoff from a smaller flush will make-up for all the money lost when this hand fails to make it's draw.

I'll certainly try to limp in with Axs in late position, but I almost never play it otherwise. In my opinion, flush draws are far too visible to the average player to make them profitable from early position.

Anyone disagree?