Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I will not comment on the quality of the mathematical exposition of the book, as it is a classic on the field. This reformatted edition from the publishing company (Wiley) is literally PACKED WITH ERRORS that didn't exist in previous editions! They took a well established book from a recently deceased author, they reformatted it (did not alter it) and put it in a fancier cover. But in the process of reformatting, they didn't even bother reading it! NOT ONCE! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UPDATE: Upon request, a list of indicative errors. - Right before equation 1.12 they use the symbol "\in" instead of the greek "\epsilon", which they then correctly uses in the equation. This error is repeated many times throughout the book. - Equation 1.13 is missing an "=" sign before they open a left curled brace... - Equation 1.14 uses capital "S" for a variable (partial sums), while starting from equation 1.15 he uses small "s" for the same variable. - Appendix, section A9, he correctly uses (a,b) and [a,b] for open and closed intervals respectively, and then incorrectly (a,b) and [a,nb) for left and right half-open intervals (instead of the correct (a,b] and [a,b) ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UPDATE 2 (2015): Given the unexpected popularity of this 3-year old review I will make a few comments on the actual contents of the book, in case you are considering buying (e.g. the 3rd Edition). Make sure you understand the following: A) I will start with the obvious, this is not an introductory text on probability. This is graduate-level probability mostly for Mathematicians or Engineers doing research. This is not a book for everyone, and definitely not a good book for self-studying. B) The book is a classic and certainly made a huge impact and had many novelties when it first came out (i believe the 80s). That being said, it could use a lot of love in terms of the organization of the contents (compare e.g. with Robert Ash). C) It still has a lot of material that is hard to find collectively in other books, so the select few involved in research on the field could certainly use a copy of the book in their bookshelf. D) If you need a book for use as a reference on measure-theoretic probability, it would be safe to say that the text from Robert Ash is arguably one of the best (great organization, clear and to the point). Still, I don't feel this book is good for self-studying either. E) If you are self-studying graduate-level probability, and do not have previous exposition to measure theory or abstract mathematics in general, I would strongly suggest starting with something lighter, e.g. Rosenthal's book on Rigorous Probability or some online notes. F) Is this the book you are looking for? If you are still reading my review up to this point for reasons other than curiosity, this is probably the best indication that this is NOT a book for you. This is one of the books you buy because you know you just need them. I know I did (and still do). I hope this makes sense :) Best!