i agree with JKDS. i was going to make a post along similar lines but i didnt want to be the first poster in this thread and come out critiquing "da worldz best pokor theorist". i understood the material (probably wouldnt have if i wasnt already familiar with the theory) but i think they took some pretty convoluted lines to convey the point. i personally found the PNLH standard intro section covering pot odds, implied odds etc to be way clearer and more informative. yes i realise i am bad at poker and i've never written a book etc etc. i just dont like the method they used to convey their ideas in this particular chapter.