Yes, I agree that reads are exceptionally important.  That's why I always feel awkward when replying to posts.  For me, as I work as an attorney in my profession, the legal answer is always it depends.  I think that is the answer in poker as well.  For example, that hand posted where the Hero had 99 on a AA6 board.  I wrote a decision saying I would either fold or call down but ultimately based on the information presented idk what I would have done.  I don't feel as if I expressed myself very well.  But the root of what I was saying was that I think you have value to call here, that's a tactical decision.  However, strategically, I would fold for X reasons and there were several real reasons why I would fold on the flop there.  I know my fold decision is borderline as I realize I am sacrificing a small amount of equity tactically speaking, but for strategic reasons, I can fold.

Yet that's not even what I am saying specifically, at least it doesn't encompass all that I am saying.  Reads go into the decisions on a specific hand, but it's much more than that.  I truly believe that there is GTO play and that not many players play even close to GTO, specifically once antes are introduced.  For me antes are such an integral part of the game that poker at its root becomes SOLELY a battle for blindes/antes.  I mean if there were no blinds/antes there would be no reason to play a hand, and we should just wait for AA specifically then jam, or just not play poker at all bc there would be no possible way to win unless your opponent deviated from GTO.  This means that I think opening with any 2 is the strategically correct move if it is folded to you in MP/LP.  You should raise an amount where your opponents fold the majority of the time, if thats a min-raise, 2.5X, or 3X, it's trial and error.  If your opponents call a min raise then start raising 3xBB, of course there is a limit to this as the more you raise the higher % of the time you need your opponent to fold to show +EV.  I do think there is an equilibrium point though where your opponents are folding often enough to show an immediate profit. If your opponents all fold 60%+ of the time, which they generally do, it shows an immediate profit.  If they call then you see a flop and seeing more cards is crucial as it gives you more opportunity to add value if you are a better post-flop player than your opponent, which I have to assume that you are if you are employing this strategy. Of course, the counter to the habitual raise is to 3bet light against anyone who is raising light but will fold to a 3 bet.  The problem with this is that 4 betting light then becomes GTO for your opponent.  That's why in the WSOP you frequently see these “leveling wars” that look ridiculous to the outside observer, and sometimes someone gets stacked holding KQ v. pocket Aces that one time your opponent actually has it, but in the long run the person who blinks first (folds) is usually the long-term loser in these preflop Cold Wars.

Fold equity is such a powerful concept to me that I think calling AT ANY TIME deviates from GTO.  Keep in mind that GTO isn't always the best move, it's just that if you had to choose between always calling or always raise/folding you would choose the raise as more optimal.  For this reason, I open a lot more than most, and I 3 bet light a lot more than most.  Granted, for tactical reasons you shouldn't always do X over Y, but I have to have some sort of specific tactical reason to deviate from my baseline strategic principles.  The strategy of accumulating chips in these moderate risk/moderate reward scenarios is always the baseline though. 

I've read a lot of poker theory books and the person whose strategy (at least in high ante tournaments, not cash, but we're talking tournaments here) most closely resembles GTO is Gus Hansen by far.  Some people call his style of play risky, but I think the opposite is true.  Being tight and waiting for hands to me is much more risky, because you are putting your tournament life on the line based the premise that you will eventually get getting good cards and that they will hold up.  This is the TRUE risk bc you may never get those cards.  Hansen's strategy is not dependent upon his own cards and therefore in some sense is less risky.  It is also less risky in another sense.  Raising more frequently pre, raising higher amounts (3xBB) and 3 betting light has a tendency to win A LOT of small/mid size pots but avoids having your chips at risk in big pots, or in coin flip situations.  Your opponents are folding most of the time, but when someone who has folded to 90% of your 3 bets suddenly 4 bets, that is information you gained relatively cheaply.  Generally, it is much more risky to try to out play an opponent with a narrow range after the flop where you are giving him more cards to see; therefore, he becomes more and more committed in the hand.  Playing more post-flop also tends to put a larger amount of chips at risk ironically.  I think Gus Hansen is a much better tournament player than most give him credit for, but not for the reasons you may think.  Basically I think Gus is a mediocre hand reader/tactical player but his play most closely resembles what I believe to be GTO, which is why he absolutely crushed the tournament scene for a while.  Now more players are adapting to his strategy and incorporating his ideas, but keep in mind that 10 years ago he was pretty original.  Meanwhile, Phil Ivey, Negreneau, Hellmuth, and Harrington are MUCH better hand readers than Gus imo.  It's just that TAG play is so far from GTO strategy in high ante structures that they have to be so good tactically simply to make up for the fact that their baseline  strategy deviates so substantially from GTO.  Smallball is a little better than TAG, but not by much imo.   

There are tactical reason for me to deviate from GTO.  In fact, I may deviate from it quite frequently if my opponents have tendencies that are so exploitable that a deviation from GTO would show substantial +EV.  There are so many reasons to deviate from GTO that I cannot even name them but they include: fear of getting 4 bet, being on the bubble, having a short stack myself, my opponents having a short stack, my opponent is such a poor post-flop player that I have more equity playing post-flop than 3 betting, etc.  But my baseline is what I believe to be GTO. 

I think some players play too tight and some too loose but of the hands people play almost no one plays aggressively enough.  People should be opening instead of limping, 3 betting in places where they call, and sometimes 3 betting even in spots where most people fold.  Another point is that I have many friends who tell me about their specific hands and I think they played that specific hand well enough.  But their win rates don't show it.  I am almost certain that when a player plays individual hands well on a tactical level but don't show large tournament profits is that they are deviating so much from GTO that they cannot possibly make up for it with sound tactical play.

You may disagree as to what I believe is GTO, but I think that I'm right.  I believe GTO exists and that Gus has come close to finding it.  I know I just wrote a novel here but it will be interesting to know your thoughts, whether you agree with me as to what the GTO is, and whether GTO exists at all.  I've been thinking about this a lot the past few months.    

Yes, I think it does vary from table to table.  I actually play large buy-in live exclusively where most players are too tight naturally and those who would otherwise not be too tight are suddenly playing tight due to the amount of money at stake in the tournament.  In these tournaments I am 110% sure that LAG is GTO. 

Online in low buy-in tournaments is probably the the polar opposite, at least that's what I've heard, where a large portion of players just don't care that much about the outcome so would think nothing of calling a 3 bet with KJo, which is actually attrocious.  Although I don't know as I haven't played online since 2006.