I've got to side with Powda on this one. When I was starting out I tried to read his "Theory of Poker" and it was way over my head. I vowed to come back to it when I had worked on the fundamentals of my game. I think Sklansky has managed to create a complex yet digestible system of fundamentally sound poker that is, above all, teachable. Take Doyle Brunson as a contrasting example. Obviously one of the kings of all forms of poker, but most people agree that his chapter on NLHE in SS2 is mediocre at best. Doyle just KNOWS how to play poker, but he's not necessarily able to articulate what he knows in a way that can educate the everyday player. Sklansky, on the other hand, is both a great poker theoretician and a great teacher, hence the success of the 2+2 empire.

Get those two guys heads up and I bet Brunson would whip the shit out of Sklansky, but if you gave them each 50 guys of reasonable intelligence and told them they had to train them to be winning poker players in 30 days, I bet the Sklansky team would be much better earners at the tables at the end.