Inside Poker article - "The Greek" on "Real Pot Odds"

[crazyplay]

Now I don't mean to be rude, but has anyone read this article in this months UK's Inside Poker? This guy claims you don't need to be an Oxbridge maths grad to calculate pot odds, which is true, so why does he make things so mathematically complicated for himself, he actually completely screws up the numbers?

Ok, here's his example hand:

you hold K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

flop comes J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

How many outs do you have? I say 21 max. He's right, you'll get a few different answers to this, and I agree when he says it's best to consider you probably have 15 outs, as the overcards will often not be enough. Fine

So he goes on to figure out the pot odds and the required odds for calling. And he does it in a way I've never come across before:

"Let's assume this is a full table and 20 cards are dealt out. We also have a burn card and three cards that appear on the board,so, 24 of the 52 cards in the deck have already been utilized, meaning that 46% of the cards in the deck are out; it is also logical to assume that 46% of your possible outs are also out. As such, you probably have eight "realistic" outs remaining to improve your hand. In other words, you have about a 28% chance of catching one of your outs in the remaining 28 cards. Thus proper pot odds to make the call and continue on the turn would be something in the region of 3.5/1. Nevertheless, 4/1 is really what you want in order to make this a profitable venture. If you continuously call in this scenario with pot odds of 4/1 or greater, you'll do well in the long run."

Can you spot the glaring error in this "logic"?

He doesn't say whether we're talking limit or no limit. If it's no-limit the whole call or no call makes no sense to me - I'd be thinking of how much I should raise!

Now I'm not really having a pop at the Greek himself, as this guy's been a pro for over 30 years and can obviously play, but how can any self-respecting poker publication let this drivel go to press? I should probably drop them an email and ask.