A) I would use PIO solver

B) I would bet 75% with one sizing on the river, we shouldn't lost so much EV compared to 2 betsizing + the effort to use 2 betsizes.

I feel like this argument about river sizing is heavily based on the assumptions of your flop and turn sizing being the way it was, which I don't think is very good.

If you think you can have a 200% psb range on the river when you go 2/3 and 2/3, my guess is the same range will get a higher EV when you go 1.2x, 1.2x and 1.2x.

screen name is so 1999!!

best answer really is to do some solver work. I can't think of a good shortcut. your bluffs for each size should have low checkback EV and block his respective continuing ranges.

thanks for answers. Yeah screen name is from 2006 pretty close.

I think it will depend on how dynamic the board will get. Theorically, for example, you have 5 combos of value and 5 combos of bluffing, it's the same as having 50 value combos and 50 bluffing combos. What's the matter is the value:bluff ratio.

Besides using correct math, you could exploit some villains and regs that doesn't pay attention to this fact. Just bet a little less than usual with your bluffs and bet bigger with your values. I'm pretty sure most people does not make notes on bet sizings patterns vs others.