Miller: save pots, not bets; Sklansky: save bets, not pots????????????

[Luhroy]

No, I am not looking for contradictions in "the" books just to create posts.

So, is it just me, or does the following qualify as a legitimate contradiction? If not, what am I missing?

In TP, Sklansky says, "The object of poker is not to win pots but to win money; it is with...extra bets won or saved that you win money" (p. 215).

BUT,

In Miller's "Getting Started in Hold 'Em," he says, "Save pots, not bets. This should be your fundamental philosophy at limit hold 'em" (pp. 41 & 104).

[Kimbell175113]

Sklansky is saying that $$$ is the way to keep score, that losing a bunch of pots should not discourage you if you are making +EV plays.

Miller is saying that, in the loose passive small stakes limit HE games that are common, the way to win $$$ is to go after the big pots, with nut flushes etc, because you will rarely win without a showdown or with just one pair or whatever.

They are saying the same thing. If you play the way Miller says, you will 'lose' a bunch of smaller pots when you miss your draws/get rivered/whatever, but that you'll still win in the long run because you will have the best of it in the big pots.

edit: actually, the particular thing you quoted from Miller seems to mean, specifically, "don't fold in big pots." aka don't worry about making a laydown, even though you're probably beat, because the call is usually +EV in LHE.

[jay_shark]

Miller is referring to a situation where you may bet the flop as a slight underdog and that it may still be preferred over giving a free card and losing to a bigger pot . So it's much better to lose a flop bet than to lose the pot since a flop bet is a fraction of the pot size .

[jstill]

not a contradiction at all