Look at the villain's calling ranges
70% fold to 3 bet: TT-QQ AQs+, AK
50%: 77-QQ, AQs, 98-AKs
30%: 55-QQ, most suited broadways, SCs down to 65s

When you go from 70 to 50% you're including a lot of combos that dominate your hand. When you go from 50 to 30% you're not including any dominating combos and even a few (76s) that your hand dominates. There's also a lot of suited broadways in the 30% that are going to be x/f'ing a lot because of your perceived range on a wide variety of boards.
So basically, I'm guessing you have more potential to lose big pots against the 50% range and your cbets will get through a lot more vs the 30% folding range, hence the lack of a steady trend.

watch @ 15:50

the realisation of your equitity with the hand, which will depend on your skill as a player and of course the oponent.

If the game was played only preflop and then check down till the river then our equity
represends our share of the pot, but because the fact that there is postflop action, our share of the pot depends on a lot of other factors so we use R as a multiplier to adjust our equity.

yes but the video is not examining if flat>3b or vice versa

i understand that, the video is about comparing 3 hands with eachother and figuring out which is most profitable to 3bet, but IF KQ is even more profitable as a flat and the other hands are not, that means that A5 for example is still the better hand to put in a 3bet bluff range right ?

How to split our ranges between different strategies is a compeletely different subject.
We could go on talking about this forever and is off topic, my idea for this video was simply to compare some hands that could 3bet in this situation.

thanks for the reply, i was just wondering if my thinking was right. didnt mean to say your video wasnt complete or something.