[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I feel his DIPO method is essentially worthless. While it's accurate, all it does is add needless calculations that would be very difficult to do at the table for most people. I just like to say something like "I'm getting 7-to-1 on a 5-to-1 shot, therefore I'm playing." DIPO appears to essentially do this, but then it does additional calculation involving good cards and bad cards, which to me is a complete waste.


[/ QUOTE ]

I like the book, and I like DIPO and use it all the time. And frankly I think Mason is being a bit unfair here -- how can you say you have a "5-1 shot" without: (a) memorizing the mapping between outs/draw quality -> odds, or (b) doing some "additional calculation involving good cards and bad cards"? I think you're leaving out an important step for the non-savants among us. The method you quote above is solving a problem of smaller scope than DIPO solves, so the comparison is unfair.

To be honest I think his biggest mistake was calling it DIPO and making it a big deal. If he just would have written the chapter on pot odds, said "here's how some people do it, here's how I do it", and used his DIPO method himself in the discussion, there wouldn't be this much fuss about it. It's really a marketing difference that has no impact on the quality of the book.