Hey Darren, thanks for the constructive feedback and I'm glad you enjoyed the series :)

I would prefer to defend the KQ not to get blown off my equity

Right, if my options are defend or 3b and get blown off of my equity then clearly we're going to opt for defending the KQdd. But in spots like this we have to try to gauge how often we are going to get 4b and blown off of our equity. I think way too often in preflop situations where people are debating between 3b'ing and flatting/defending a hand they get hung up on the worst case scenario and ignore/don't properly estimate just how often that worst case scenario comes to fruition (the same goes for postflop spots when debating on barreling w/ a hand that has a lot of equity but which will have to bet-fold to a check-raise/jam). Yes, it sucks having to 3b-fold so much equity, but what if that situation only occurs 10% of the time? And then 45% of the time we pick up 100% of the pot (~4bb) and the other 45% we play postflop w/ a range advantage and a hand that dominates a lot of villain's flatting range? There are definitely player types where we should be 3b'ing this hand 100% of the time (even reshipping) and others where we should just never 3bet. Hence, as I mentioned in the video, I think some sort of mix on average is reasonable and that the EVs will end up similar.

What was the payout structure? You left that out. I’m interested in
how weighted 1st place was and of collecting bounties truly incentives
more so then ICM or vis versa?

I'm pretty sure we didn't know the payout structure at the time we recorded this.

I can't recall if I mentioned it off the top, but my suspicion in PKO's is that ICM is still reasonably important early at FT's while becoming significantly less important around 3-handed when it becomes almost solely about winning (since the structure is so top-heavy). I'll give a recent example. A couple of weeks ago I got 2nd in the 109 Bounty Builder on Pokerstars. 3-handed I had a spot where I opened BTN off 65bb, a 13bb stack w/ a small-ish bounty reshipped and the 30bb stack in the BB iso'd. I had KQo and and overcalled but wasn't confident in my decision so marked the hand and reviewed it after the tournament. I ran an advanced hand calculation in HRC and it had my hand being a very profitable overcall at equilibrium. The problem is no one (IMO) was going to iso as wide in the BB's spot as HRC suggested here. SB was supposed to reship ~27% (reasonable!) but the 30bb BB was supposed to iso this 27% 13bb reship w/ 22% of hands (down to/including hands like A2s, A5o, K7s, 98s!). That was wild to me. I can't really explain that result per se, as it's not super intuitive to me (as I mentioned, the SB's bounty really wasn't that large), but I think it likely has something to do w/ a) me raise-folding BTN to that reship frequently, b) we get the bounty if we bust SB, c) we have a lot of equity vs a wide 27%-ish range w/ some of those fringier holdings like K7s, 98s, and d) when we bust we immediately get HU w/ fairly even stacks in a spot where all of the money is on the line.

So yeah, to conclude, I think it's safe to say bounties/winning becomes the overriding factor once short-handed at PKO FT's.

I can only speak for myself but I'd be playing a mixed strategy between checking back and iso'ing w/ the majority of my offsuit holdings (on most stack depths tbh, just varied in frequency/how I think the pool/player will react to my isos). I'm definitely not playing a polarized strategy here deep and am more focused on putting higher weights on hands that are less polarized/with more playability - these 'down the middle' connected/gapped offsuit hands are nice to throw in at a decent weight because they can make straights and flop a lot of pair + gutter decent equity-type holdings (which helps them to retain equity fairly well IP over multiple streets).

Generally, the sizing(s) we use on the river are a byproduct of a bunch of factors, most importantly the range vs range interaction. In addition, different 'categories' of value bets tend to be incentivized to bet different amounts. For example, our nut combos tend to want to bet as large as possible (since they can't be beat) while our thin value bets have a preference towards smaller sizings (so worse hands will pay them off).

This is an easier topic to explain in theory than in practice b/c in practice most of the river spots we find ourselves in we utilize multiple sizings and both players have nut combos in their range, etc. We can also find ourselves in spots where our 'bluffs' should actually come from weak made hands like pairs, etc.

I'll explain through a nuts-air example (FWIW these spots do occur in poker fairly frequently, there are lots of spots where one person is capped and the other player has
a polarized all-in betting component of {nuts, bluffs})...If you arrive to river w/ {nut combos, air combos} and your opponent arrives to the river w/ {hands that beat your air but lose to your value} and you do not have enough bluffs in your range to be able to balance for a large bet size, theory would suggest you size down to the point where you make villain indifferent between calling or folding their bluffcatchers.

HOWEVER, in practice, the player w/ the nuts-air range is best served by just betting as large as they can and villain by folding everything. The reason for this? Your nuts-air component is entitled to the pot. If you perfectly balanced your betting region your EV w/ that region would = the pot and villain's EV = 0. We can basically treat it as our opponent always folds and we win the pot. The bluffcatching player tries to hit an MDF vs the bet size to make sure that the nuts-air player CANNOT bluff all of their bluffs and steal EV from the pot. In a situation where the nuts-air player doesn't have enough bluffs to exploit/steal EV from the pot, the bluffcatching player opens himself up to the possibility of losing > than the pot in EV should the nuts-air player split their range into multiple components (i.e. balance a larger sizing but then also bet a smaller sizing unbalanced towards value). Conversely, the nuts-air player, by trying to pick the sizing that makes villain's bluffs indifferent, could accidentally screw up their frequency and lay villain a profitable bluffcatch, allowing them to steal EV from the pot in a spot where the nuts-air player's EV should be the entire pot.

That was wordy, but hope it helps.