Most surprising 'blunder' in an authoritative poker book?

[notorious]

Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'blunder' : stupid or careless mistake (related to the word 'blind')

What are the most surprisng blunders in 'authoritative' poker books?

My nomination is p.134 of Scott Fischman's Online Ace:

"The guy who squeezed past the bubble to finish 560th in the 2005 WSOP Championship made $12,500, a 25 percent return on the $10,000 entry fee. The guy who finished first won $7,500,000, a 750 percent return on his investment."

The correct answer is surely 75,000 percent.

Or, to be more precise, because the winner is not refunded his entry fee, it's 74,900 percent. (To simplify matters, I am ignoring the additional cost of the registration fee)

[playersare]

LOL at Scott Fischman "authoritative"

[Harmonium]

Not sure if you could call Navarro's book authoritative but maybe it is considering there aren't many other books on the subject matter. I nominate the blunder on P 105 of that book, where Joe is excited because he now has trip kings against his opponent's "3 queens". A pretty big blunder given that the whole book is about observation, reading and awareness.

[xxx]

HOH 1 pg. 6.

"The button is marked by a white disk which moves around the table counter-clockwise."

[Al Mirpuri]

I think it is Ray Zee's HiLo book where we are told before we get to the book proper that Zee lives in the 'dessert' [sic].

[beaver]

Doyle Brunson said prayer cures cancer in Super/System

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Doyle Brunson said prayer cures cancer in Super/System

[/ QUOTE ]

In his case it did.

RZ

[zerocarb]

"Play Poker Like The Pros," pp. 1-394.

[Montrealcorp]

lol zero, but i have to disagree a bit

[SGspecial]

In Sklansky on Razz (later Sklansky on Poker), 3rd street chapter. He calculates the pot odds for many different spots, but neglects to account for the bring-in bet three different times.