To answer this reviewer's specific points:
-Rake is boring, and there's nothing you can do about it. Of course you need to beat the game for more bb/100 hands at the low and micro stakes than you do at the mid and high stakes, but I don't see how a mathematical analysis would enliven the book.
-If I can use Pokerhands to provide a HUD for 5CD, anybody can. I am an IT fish.
-The traffic at 5CD is nothing like that at NLHE, but you can still build a bankroll from it.
-There are two large sections on the theory of NLHE, so I find the reviewer's comment that there isn't any detailed theory rather baffling.
-I resent the implication that the book plagiarizes Easy Game, which is frankly libellous. We use the same terminology as Easy Game, but that's not plagiarism. It's like saying anybody that uses calculus is plagiarizing Newton.
-If I wanted to get rich quick, I wouldn't write a poker book, and I certainly wouldn't go through a mainstream publisher. Writing the book was a challenge, and we earn next to nothing from it. How many copies do you think poker books, even the good ones, sell?
-The book is explicitly NOT aimed at beginners.
Sorry to sound grumpy, but honestly, any review of a poker book that starts 'The online games are difficult today with no easy games left as there were a few years ago' is guaranteed to be nonsense. Of course, if you want to just open your pockets and wait for money to fall in, you'll need a time machine to take you back to 2004, but for anyone who's prepared to put some work into it, poker is still beatable.