Stick with 2+2's other NL books by Harrington (vol 2 & 3). Ed Miller and David Sklansky show their inexperience in NL in this book. They do mask their No-Limit shortcomings by filling a lot of the book with Limit Holdem analogies (their strength) and a lot of mathematics (another strength).
Sklansky is the son of a mathematician, and Ed Miller is an MIT graduate. Their strength is in mathematics, and they excel in Limit Holdem due to it. However in No-Limit, they have no qualifications. Sklansky isn't known as a good NL player (the next time I see him in a WSOP NL final table will the first time), and Ed Miller doesn't even frequent the middle-stake games. How much stock would you put into someone else's limit holdem advice if they don't play higher than 10/20 holdem? It's like that guy who's playing 3/6 holdem with you, but he acts like everything spewed from his mouth is a blessing for those lucky enough to hear. Except with these authors, they actually do have credentials from another form of poker, so many people will assume, they also are an authority on other forms of poker. Would you take tennis lessons from a good ping pong player?
They make a lot of observations about NL situations with math, but they don't actually give out a game plan of how to logically think through a hand the way a pro does. They fill the book with these types of situations:
Assume he has these hands: 99, AT, T9s, and if the pot has this much money ($500) and you have $1000 left, and opponent has $1000 left, then the following bets will net you X%, depending on how frequently they call Y% or they raise you back Z%. Then they proceed with the math to explain each possibility. Of course, they don't actually go over many hand reading situations to explain which hand the opponent may have and how they would play it. It doesn't help to know which move to make, if I can't deduce what hands he has, and that should be the focus of any quality poker book, which 2+2 claims to produce. This one falls short, and it's due to the authors' lack of NL ability.
This book's strength is that it shows why certain plays are mathetmatically correct. That doesn't mean, you can't take those conclusions, and figure out the correct play to make.
For example: If you have AK and you raise, then if our opponent raises with KK, we can use math to show why it's correct to fold. That doesn't help me if I raise with AK, and my opponent raises me, sometimes I should raise again, sometimes call, sometimes fold. I don't know he has KK or AQ or 87, so how's the math help me now? It doesn't. This is a very simple example for those who play small stakes or are new to poker. But this is the best example in summarizing this book.