Confused about Implied Odds

[gmcarroll33]

I just re-skimmed over Theory of Poker and the section about implied odds, and I'm some what confused. Sklansky gave the example about Stu Ungar vs Doyle in 1980. Where the pot was 30,000 and Doyle Flopped Aces and Sevens, but Stu had a gut shot at a 3 to make him a straight. Doyle bet 17,000 into the pot and Stu called.

Here is where I get confused. Sklansky says Stu's implied odds were like 10 3/4-1 or something but his odds against making the straight were 14-1. Doyle had like 230,000 chips left. So how do I begin to do the math on this and determine implied odds?

Also Sklansky says in summary that implied odds work when your hand is well disguised and it usually needs to be unbeatable when you make your hand. So what is the amount Stu could not have called profitably based on his implied odds? Also how do you go about looking beyond pot odds when considering implied odds? I personally begin to think about the odds against me making my hand vs the odds my opponents bet is giving me. But it seems like implied odds are making you not focus so much on this but on what you can win. So how do you balance the two kinds of odds your thinking about in a hand?

One last question. Sklansky says it works best when disguised well. Gut shots and straight draws seem like the only hands disguised well. I mean flush draws seem pretty obvious to me. So other than straight draws, what kinds of hands are good disguising ones?

Thanks for any resonses.