I read somewhere about Hoss saying it's generally a bad idea to start bifurcating your range unnecessarily in lots of spots. By this, I mean: different bet sizings, donk and checking ranges, that type of thing and that he likes to keep his ranges together. It helps with playability because you have less to worry about in terms of knowing where you are in your range and also for balance because again, you know when you are at the bottom of your range for bluffing etc. You also don't become capped which is a massive advantage as well.

I think OOP you sometimes might want to start constructing a check-raising range for obvious purposes but in spots where you are IP and can raise rivers is it good to not split your range wherever possible. I know this means you can get sucked out on by allowing villain to realize their equity more with draws but is this offset by the things I have mentioned? For example, in 3bet pots where stacks are threatened by bet-bet-bet lines, is it ok as a default to construct call flop/call turn ranges without much of a raising range unless you have an exploitative reason for doing so?

Against a nemesis (who plays perfect against your strategy) when would it be preferable to have a raising range in the 3bet example I have given and what exploitative reasons could you give? I suppose if they fold too much you can raise your draws etc but as a heuristic is there something along the line of 'if you get more calls by worse hands by raising now, than by calling and then calling again it is dominant to just go ahead and raise'? And if so, what is an example of this? When their 'bluffs' have significant equity, is that a valid enough reason for raising as well?