Sklansky hand groups vs. CMU hand groups

[SineNomine]

I recently came across this on the web. The authors purport to have ran a powerful computer simulation of Hold’em poker, and to have corrected aspects of Sklansky’s and Malmuth’s hand groupings and recommendations in Hold’em Poker and Hold’em Poker for Advanced Players. Some of their thoughts are interesting, but I lean toward sticking with the original groupings. I have more faith in Sklansky and Malmuth’s analysis of real world experience than the ability of a computer to successfully simulate poker. However, I am interested in what more experienced players think. I would be particularly grateful if Sklansky or Malmuth would favor us with a response. If either has written about this before I would appreciate some one pointing me to the reference.

[grimel]

How about total morons not bothering to actually read any of the books they've compared with their work?

In all the books (execpt Warren's) the authors clearly state - this groups vary according to game conditions.

Finally (because this is all I'm bother to write), this criteria is silly:

[ QUOTE ]
Player 1 is always our hero. Whatever starting hand our hero is dealt becomes the focus hand in that round of play. Focus hands are always played aggressively all the way to the river.

During that round all of the other players make four decisions: (a) to play or fold before the flop, (b) play or fold after the flop,(c) play or fold after the turn and (d) play or fold after the river card is turned up.

[/ QUOTE ]

S&M's rankings are based on MONEY making potential. This simulation has 1) invalid starting assumption and 2) piss poor play (i.e. like a maniac).