Implied Odds in NL, the Stewart Reuben Theory

[JackWilson]

In the book Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker by Stewart Reuben and Bob Ciaffone, Reuben states that the "general rule of thumb among professionals" for calling a bet based on implied odds is that "you want the potential to win about twenty times the current bet you are facing."

I'm interested in hearing thoughts on this, since I don't believe it to be true.

For example, if you were facing a $3 bet into an $7 pot on the flop and you had an OESD, you'd want to call getting nearly 3.5-1 on your money and having nearly an 18% chance or a 1 in 5 shot of making your hand on the next card. Strict pot odds imply that you should not call, whereas adding the incentive of implied odds would dictate that you should. Reuben would seem to imply that unless your opponents stack (or the money you could win) was at least $60, you'd be better off folding?