Due to various activities—including those by the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—we are happy to see a global decrease in malaria cases. But too many still suffer and die from malaria so malaria prevention or at least to prevent deaths by malaria is of paramount importance, still. And this is not true for the indigenous population only but for travellers as well. Balancing the risk of disease with that of possible side effects of chemoprophylaxis is a difficult task which mostly leads to split decisions even in experts (as was shown in a thrilling Pro-Con debate at the CISTM14 in Quebec in May 2015). This lack of guidance left and still leaves many colleagues (including qualified travel medicine practitioners) quite puzzled—not to talk about those on target—i.e. the travellers. For sustainable guidance my deep believe is: KEEP IT SIMPLE—otherwise counselling doctors (not all of whom are experts in tropical medicine or malariology) as well as travellers will get lost in confusion for sure1 (‘The compliance is inversely proportional to the complexity of the prescription’—Haynes and Sackett 1976). Insect bite precautions (IBP) from dusk until dawn are the mainstay of malaria prophylaxis—so this is of paramount importance for each traveller going to malaria endemic areas no matter how high the risk actually is. The first crucial decision of the binary decision tree is the definition of high risk of exposure (but may consider high risk of complications in vulnerable travellers as well). Whereas some sources say that there is no method of quantifying the risk2 in other sources high risk is defined by a risk …