Originally posted by rdmnick
Game Theory Optimazation means basically that you play the most optimal way with your range and have the most optimal countermove ready for the most optimal move by your opponent. That way perfect GTO means 0EV vs. The middle of our opponents range and makes it impossible to play since we can't play perfect which is why "Game Theory Optimal" is kind of misleading since we are not solving poker.
So to answer you question if the most optimal way to play a certain range of hands in SB is to limp, then limp that range, but don't do it to mix up your play.
I'm not sure what the most optimal betsizes is tbh, but I don't think it's optimal to min raise from utg since we are most likely to be OOP.
Don't mix up your play, if you were playing perfect GTO you could tell your opponent what you were going to do and at least be breakeven and make profit every time he make a mistake.
These answers might be different if you are playing another strategy, so this might not be adjustments you should make on your cuttet strategy.
I'm not an expert so it might not be totally correct, but this is my best answers.
GTO has so far been defined in more than one way I believe. As far as goes, GTO doesn't necessarily mean 0EV as part of game theory dictates we must always take the most +EV line for every hand. However if applying the concept of "ficticious play" where one strategy adjust to the other which then re-adjusts, etc. We'lll eventually arrive at a point where neither strategy has an incentive to change, and this is what people commonly refer to as game theory optimal. But once arriving at this point, depending on the specific scenario, there is nothing in game theory that says one player (thus both) have to be 0EV against each other, one player can have a higher EV than the other, yet both be playing GTO. However, this is dependant on the situation/scenario, what GTO states is simply that neither player can increase their EV by further changing their strategy in this specific spot.
Limping in SB is generally believed to be far more optimal than raising, by this I mean 100% of our proceeding range, not just the hands we don't consider worth of raising. As for "don't mix up your play" I'm not sure what you're referring to but I assume it is related to my question regarding limping. I'd like to point out to you that this strategy as stated above involved limping our entire proceeding range, probably in the range of 60-70% hands, this strategy thus does not involve adopting a mixed strategy where one raises a part of his range, and simply call the other. However, even from a game theoretical standpoint, a mixed strategy isn't necessarily bad, it certainly would require a lot more work and it would be harder to balance but it could still be done from a GTO perspective. The question whether a mixed strategy is more effective than a fold/raise strategy or a fold/call strategy is difficult to answer, either way my question did not concern itself with a mixed strategy.
As for minraising from all positions, I don't think you have enough insight to answer this question I'm afraid. However, any opinion/input is always appreciated, so thank you.
My questions were simply strategic concepts that I wanted to have discussed/validated from a game theoretical perspective.
Happy grinding mate 
Edit: I realise I sound way too negative in my response to you, sorry about that mate, I'd like to blame it on the fact that I just came from a rough session. Hopefully you're running a bit hotter than I am, hehe. GL
GTO is not necessarily the most +EV play in every situation, it's just the most optimal countermove from a theoretical point. And in theory we should be 0EV playing GTO, because we build the strategy around opponents who plays optimal against us, and we will then be +EV everytime our opponents deviate from the optimal line. And to make our range balanced we should be 0EV vs the middle of opponents range, thats why an GTO graph will be breakeven SD-winings an profit in non-SD winnings.
GTO is not the strategy we want to play all the time, we should mix it with an exploitative strategy whenever we can exploit our opponents.
Limping from SB might be a good strategy, since we will be unexploitable, but we will also be OOP every hand vs. BB and if BB knows how to play in position I just don't see this being the most optimal strategy, It might be a good strategy at mid-stakes+, but below I think it's better to open raise, but I haven't really seen anybody use this strategy and argue why this should be the best way to play, so I don't have that much to say beside my opinion. But I know that against some opponents it is profitable to open 100%, but that is again exploitable, but an example of where we want to deviate from GTO.
Limping from SB might be profitable vs. some opponent, but vs. other opponents you can open 100% profitable. I haven't really seen this concept of limping our entire range from SB, but then again I don't follow that many different players.
As for min-raising every position you are right I don't have insight at all, this might be more relevant to 6-max, which I don't know much about.
), action (3bet pot oop with iniciative?) or frequency (flop cbet or river raise)?
