Hate to be discontinuous, but, in regards to JKDS' earlier post:

Quote Originally Posted by JKDS
(...)
Basically his reasoning seems to be that in a multiway pot when flopping the absolute nuts, its better to just check it down to allow someone else to hit a 2nd nut type hands with some unlikely combination. However as carroters said, 98, kq, jx, tx and other hands will gladly put in a bet or two...and with a 100bb stack as typical of an online game, itll make the spr go down pretty quickly. Surely the value we get from shoving the river in a low spr pot and getting 98 and jx to always call in addition to the extra bets from kq and such exceeds that we get form someone making an unlikely 2nd nut hand.

Also it would seem that we'd only take the c c shove line with a nut type hand anyway so we'd give information about our hand and allow our opponent to make hard laydowns easier...seemingly going against the advice in the previous section which seemed to be not giving info about our hand.
Completely agree on the first point about how we are better off extracting value from hands like 98 and Jx, rather than waiting until the river to unleash a huge bet on the slim hope that one of our opponents has improved to the 2nd nuts (or some other very strong hand).

One thing that really struck me when I read this section was that this entire line described by Sklansky - the whole c, c, shove deal - is something that seems to happen with surprising frequency in the microstakes. I'm sure we can all remember situations in 2NL where a pot was checked down to the river, the last betting action having taken place preflop, only to witness the villain either dole out a large bet on the river or even go all-in. Granted, I would posit that a huge portion of the time, these players are not holding the nuts -- and at least some of the times they do have very good hands, that they would have actually just improved to them on the river -- but I get the impression that these types of lines just come off as being weak attempts by the Op to try and recapture value lost on previous streets. Something that any astute player would have avoided in the first place.

Bearing all this in mind, there is probably some validity to the theory in the sense that, ignoring previous action, if we are holding the nuts on the river and our villain's range tends towards either weak made hands and a few slow-played monsters, we may be better off betting large or raising for value in order to maximize our expectation. This was not made very clear within the text, however.