The author suggests a "dominator" style at the table: very tight (especially from early positions), very aggressive (betting at least the size of the pot, often more; never calling, never drawing - it deteriorates your image), and using this image to steal/bluff a few additional pots. Granted. Some of the anecdotes from the good old days in Las Vegas are also worth reading.
Aside from that, this is the worst poker book I've ever read (well, almsot read, I couldn't survive past p.230).
First of all, the style and writing is horrendous, full of machismo and typos. The starting hand rank table is copied-pasted about 50 times in the book; the reader is reminded about 75 times (at each new chapter) to start reading the first chapter first, etc. The chapter "Big Blinds and Big Slick" even appears twice in the book, with a few words changed here and there. I don't expect good poker players to be great writers, but one must meet minimum standards.
In addition, some recommended plays are just plain wrong. Let's take three examples from the book...
1. Playing big slick (ace-king), unimproved to the river. The other player makes a weak bet at the river. The author suggests to call if you think he bluffs (ok), or even better, if you are certain it's a bluff, to raise the size of the pot, "because this is the power play". Well, let's say certain=80%, which is a lot. In 80% of the cases, the player folds and you gain nothing; in 20% of the case, he didn't bluff, calls your ace-high hand, and you loose a bigger pot. What is the value proposition here?
2. You hold AA, the flop is AJT rainbow. The other player bets, and the author recommends to fold, "because he must have KQ". I'm sympathetic with the idea of not falling in love with one's hand, even if it appears great, but still... In a $1/$2 game, this raise could mean many things. What about AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, JT? Between the value bets, the semi-bluffs, the pure bluffs, the bad draws, and the like, you could be against anything. And even if it were KQ (worst case scenario, though not most likely), we have 7 outs at the turn and 10 outs at the river to redraw to the nuts, so it would not be a great situation, but not desperate either. Folding? Really?
3. Last example. The author plays AJ against what will later happen to be AQ. He plays horribly, and finally re-raise all-in at the river, believing he has the best hand. The player with AQ folds, and the author wins the pot. "This is the power of domination" is the conclusion of the author. Really? What about a donkey play turning out to be lucky?
All in all, this was a waste of time and money. Actually, the only poker book I didn't manage to finish.
If you want to learn, read Harrington; to improve, read Malmuth, Slansky, Miller, Cloutier; to entertain yourself, read Ciaffone, Gordon, even Cooke; to expand your horizon, read Caro... But save your money and skip this one. This is just bad advice badly written.