Using the opponent's mixed strategy in estimating the state value in minimax Q learning In the paper Markov games as a framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning  (which introduces the minimax Q Learning algorithm), at the bottom left of page 3, my understanding is that the author suggests, for a simultaneous 1v1 zero-sum game, to do Bellman iterations with $$V(s)=\min_{o}\sum_{a}\pi_{a}Q(s,a,o)$$ with $\pi_{a}$ the probability of playing action $a$ for the maximizing player in his best mixed strategy to play in state $s$. 

If my understanding is correct, why does the opponent in this equation play a pure strategy ($\min_{o}$) rather than his best mixed strategy in state $s$. This would instead give $$V(s)=\sum_{o}\sum_{a}\pi_{a}\pi_{o}Q(s,a,o)$$ with $\pi_{o}$ the opponent's best mixed strategy in state $s$. Which of these two formulations is correct and why? Are they somehow equivalent?

The context of this question is that I am trying to use minimax Q learning with a Neural Network outputting the matrix $Q(s,a,o)$ for a simultaneous zero-sum game. I have tried both methods and so far have seen seemingly equally bad results, quite possibly due to bugs or other errors in my method.
My understanding is now that the author's formula is deliberate. It seeks to learn a worst-case maximizing policy. The formula I instead suggest would, I believe, instead be Nash Q learning where the agent seeks to learn to play a Nash equilibrium.

After debugging, I have gotten good results with the second formula but cannot speak for the original Minimax Q learning one.