I know there's a huge thread on Millers' book. But now there's a well-known poker coach offering a major course on this (with Miller's permission).

I've read Miller's free extract from his book and I sort of understand its frequency-based approach. I've heard that it's a readable condensation of Janda's first book which Malmuth & Sklansky prefaced that non-expert (low-level) players should be extremely cautious with due to it's emphasis on increasing 'calling' frequency.

Question:
So is it true that this frequency-based approach is really aimed at 'good' high-level players, and not really applicable to lower-level players?

I find that much poker advice does not specify the level of player it is referring to ..this is frustrating.

The frequency-based approach is a somewhat useful way of thinking about poker, but playing in the way described in the book is just not going to be (very) profitable if you're playing against horribly unbalanced players.
The most profitable strategies are the ones that exploit your opponents' tendencies, so if you're in a game full of calling stations, then you shouldn't bluff as often as Miller's book indicates, and if your opponents rarely bluff, you shouldn't call their bets (e.g. with "bluffcatchers") as often.

To put it another way, if you're not playing against "Poker's 1%", you shouldn't try to play in a pseudo-unexploitable manner if you want to make money. The book is more of an intellectual exercise, explaining some of the ideas on how top players were building their ranges and strategies before solvers arrived on the scene.
FWIW, a strictly frequency-based approach is not actually "GTO", so you shouldn't take the advice/methods in the book literally anyway.

Out of interest, which coach is doing the new course? Is it on RedChip?

What most skimmers of Janda's first book missed is that the advice is based on playing high stakes 6 max games. He says early on that you have to go through his math for your game and adjust the ranges appropriately. As Mason Malmuth suspected, most players were just going to take the examples and followed them exactly regardless of the conditions at their table with disastrous results.

I reworked a couple of his examples changing the ranges to be more appropriate for a full ring live table. The results were that it was pretty much how most NLHE books would suggest you play anyway, with a bit more floating. My understanding is that Miller essentially did the same thing, with an emphasis on games he's familiar with.

That isn't to knock Miller's book. It is a lot of work to translate it for full ring NLHE and well worth the money if you feel you are at the stage where you needed a more balanced approach.

One piece of good poker advice that has been lost is that you want to think only one level above your opponents. The 1% isn't helpful and actually detrimental to your game if your opponents are well below it. The classic example is the person who shoves on a bluff and gets called by someone with second pair. He posts on the 2+2, "the guy was an idiot. He should have known that I could only be representing TP or better." He made the mistake of assuming the villain was doing anything other than playing his own cards.

venice10:

Thanks for the great reply (of only 2 replies I received). Like Arty's reply it helps me a lot.

Arty,
Thanks for the great reply. You always answer all my questions!
I sent you a PM about your question at end of your reply.