Wasn't sure which forum was best to post this in, but I thought I might get the most informed responses from the high stakes section.

I've been thinking about how best to size bets postflop, and how it affects the ratio of value:bluff hands we can have on each street, assuming a perfectly polarised range that bets three streets to get all-in on the river. I understand that in order to maximise the number of hands that can be bluffed by a perfectly polarised player, they should bet equal fractions on each street. It wasn't until I worked through a few different alternative options, however, that I realised that you can have very different betting lines without affecting the total number of hands you can bluff too much.

For example, take a standard game of 6max NLHE, 100bb deep. BTN min raises to 2bb preflop, SB folds, BB 3bets to 8bb, and BTN calls. BB wants to bet three streets to get all-in on the river, starting from the 16.5bb pot on the flop. Here are three possible lines he could take:

Bet ~65% pot on all three streets. Assuming a perfectly polarised range, the percentage of bluffs on each street would need to be 57.8% on the flop, 46.2% on the turn, and 30.0% on the river.

Alternatively, you could bet ~50% pot on the flop and turn, and 100% pot bet on the river. Percentage bluffs would be 57.5% on the flop, 46.7% on the turn, and 33.4% on the river.

Lastly, you could bet ~28% on the flop and turn, and 200% pot bet the river. Percentage bluffs would be 56.8% on the flop, 49.1% on the turn, and 40.0% on the river.

As you can see, there's only a 1% difference in the number of flop bluffs you can have comparing the drastically different first and last betting lines.

So my question is, under what circumstances might you want to deviate from the bet equal fractions on each street approach? It seems like the cost of doing so in terms of how often you can bluff is fairly minimal.