1. Now you see the problem with blunt theoretical axioms. I really can't stand the way Sklansky puts "the secret to winning" (I mean, how esoteric can you get?) Put the damn thing in layman's terms: "You want your opponent calling lots of bets when his cards are crappier than yours."

3. If you are shortstacked, you're still the favorite to win. The only fundamental way you've changed the game is "defending the pot," or being able to bet him out later. Since you're something like 66% to take it down, you don't change your expectation from that set point, thus diminishing the skill involved (somewhat).

Which brings me to the next point...if you have somebody who will call every all in you make when they're 33% to win, the only fundamental difference in you having your small or big stack is "how much you're going to make over time." If you're in a game with too many limpers/callers, I don't really consider it a skill game: I call it a slaughter.