I may not be the caliber of player that many are on this site, but 1...b6 was my first defense that I used as a "universal" approach, of course thanks to the Bauer book, "Play 1...b6!".  I got the opportunity to play against a 2100+ player (cannot remember the name) and I was only 1400+ at the time.  Within less than 10 moves, I had already made her think.  the beginning went as follows, if I remember (been 2-3 years probably) - 

1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. Bd3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Nb4...something like that.   I'm not saying my play was accurate, but that the original character of the opening definitely made her think.  And I have often played opponents who underestimate the potential of Black to counter-punch White's center, especially with resources against the d5 advance, which many players have made without understanding the position.  Often, I have won a pawn in the first ten moves.  Admittedly, the opponents weren't top-caliber, but even against a stronger opponent, the opening phase at least came out equal many times. 

I agree totally with Craig's reason for trying 1...b6.

True... but I will also learn a lot about types of positions that I have previously avoided (which will help me as white and black with my chess in general, not just with this opening), and I know very few people who are "prepared" and "comfortable" with these positions as white, which means that my additional preparation and familiarity will very quickly outweigh a little additional study time.

I could put in just a little work and go back to playing 1...e5, or continue with my 1...Nf6 of the last year... but it's not going to catch anyone out, players as white are going to be able to dictate the play, and ultimately I'm not convinced that either opening is necessarily much stronger than 1...b6. If I have familiarity with the theory and understand the ideas of 1...e5, I will have spent one heck of a lot more time - and I'll still have no edge over a 1.e4 player, who gets to play these lines quite often and will have his own experiences to draw on. In comparison, how often will he have faced 1...b6? Even if he knows the theory, it's likely he will not have a great deal of experience in handling the positions, and that's where the practicality of it comes in. 

In 11 or so years, and nearly 700 OTB games, I have never faced 1...b6 as white, and only once faced 1.b3 as black. In comparison, I've been involved in 80 or so sicilian games, probably 150+ 1.e4 e5 games, and even 20 or so pirc/modern games. Assuming most others have similar distributions, it is clear that most people have far more experience playing against some openings than others... and this experience and knowledge of typical plans is far more valuable than having read a long time ago in MCO that 3.Bd3 is meant to lead to a comfortable edge about 10 moves later.

Thank you all for the considered replies, and especially the ones that have cited free internet sources! 

I know that the idea of ...b6 is to avoid a mass of theory, and indeed I do not plan to spend years laboring over the opening such as one might do in the Najdorf or Dragon. However, I would like to make a decent fist at learning an opening for once, rather than my usual style "So, the Alekhine you say? How's that one go? Oh, 1...Nf6, knight gets booted over the queenside, you play ...c5 at some point and try not to get squashed? Okay, let's give it a whirl." 

Also, if there is truth to the idea that 1...b6 is less respectable in some way, then I would like to at least have a better-than-average working knowledge to offset that - especially since part of the reason for playing the opening is exactly because I am terrible at this sort of chess, and wish to try and tackle my weaknesses head-on. I do not believe that Bauer's book alone would fill me with full confidence, since he does not explain typical plans etc so much (from the reviews I have read). However, it seems that between this book, the Kaissiber issues and maybe Soltis or Hort's book (which I would expect to contain something more in the way of plan explanations) I will be able to put together a repertoire.

To answer your question Laramonet, there are a couple of reasons. Firstly, I have never particularly concerned myself with "reliability" - most openings go through trendy and untrendy phases. I remember when I started playing chess 11 years ago, the Alekhine was "practically refuted"... I am still yet to be convinced that there are lines that give white even a tangible edge. At my level, people are not going to play too many exemplar 1.d4 games - I have a shocking record against 1.d4 with most main line defences, and a plus score with things like the Englund, Albin and Fajarowicz - so I am not concerned that someone might refute it off the bat, and I will be lumbered with game after game where I have no chance. Further, I have never enjoyed playing 20-move-deep main lines, looking for a novelty on move 35 or trotting out half a game of previously-played moves. Owen's seems like a good way of getting a completely new type of position for me to practice, whilst also avoiding the majority of bookophiles' pet lines, and without being too bad to not give reasonable chances. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. If nothing else, it will be an interesting journey.

However, I do not intend to play "hippo-style". Another weakness of mine is playing with kingside fianchettos, and it is a future problem for me to address, but one major weakness at a time is quite enough! Maybe, once I improve my understanding and handling of the semi-closed positions like in the Owen's, and am more comfortable with my handling of positions against pawn centres that are not so susceptible to dismantling, then I will move onto perhaps looking at hippo-type structures.

I thought the whole point of 1...b6 was to avoid having to study several books' worth of theory. 

However, on the positive side, this means more books that your opponents won't have studied...

Hi Craig,
There are two from Soltis "The Defense 1...P-QN3" and Winning with the English Defense". Daniel King did "English Defence" for Everyman and Batsford published "The English Defence" by Keene, Plaskett and Tisdall. Others I've heard of are two pamphlets by Otto Hardy, "b6" by Kapitaniak and "Owen's defense" by Bill Wall. The only problem is the most recent of all those I've listed is the King book and that was from 1999.
Why b6 anyway ? I can see it as attractive against 1.c4 but is it reliable against e4 and d4 ? I can see it complementing your Alekhine's but what about against 1.d4 ?

You should consider whether you against certain lines would like to play the opening Hippo-style (pawns on b6, d6, e6 and g6, bishops on b7 and g7 and knights on d7 and e7). In that case you may want to look into 'Tigers Modern' (Hillarp Persson, Quality Chess 2005) and 'Starting Out: The Modern (Davies, Everyman 2008). Martin's 'The Hippopotamus Rises' (Batsford 2006) is among his weaker efforts.

Great idea - if there is a publisher from Wales who wants to publish it in a readable version, he should contact me. There is already a sister magazine of Kaissiber in Italian language.