Pretty interesting to see some 200 BB stuff. Would watch more.

Really liked this look into turn rng building. It would be great if you would turn this into a series. Thanks.

How did you set up the custom spot? Are you pulling from monkersolver ranges and using vision to browse? How did you get the stacks and positions to populate?

Min 24: Do you think is sensitive/reasonable to implement a 2 size strat on this turn? One would be Potsize, and other 1/3 or 1/4 size, where u polarize to the nuts and best blocker bluffs w big one, and then merge a bit more on the small, where u thin vbet more even non flush hands like sets and A9,(esp if the have a h blocker), and some of the the crappier bluffs which u'll give up if called, but just enough to get some eq denial to STD's, bad 2 pairs(96, 93). Then to protect the smaller size u put in there some nutted hands such as AKhh or some Khhh(basically hands that block some of the calling range from opp if u were to bet big with it but not enough were it would be better to slowplay), and then your X range will include weaker flushes that make better river bcatches, marginal made hands,natural checks and the give ups, and the rare slow play that blocks everything and want to let him catch up.
This way you get the benefit of having big sizing without the downside of having to reduce your betting frequency so much but at the same time having a reasonable XB range to not get to the point where u over barrel this turn.
Hopefully my explanation is not too confusing and managed to get my point across clearly enough.
Very interesting series, I have always been interested in this comparisons between "normal" stack and deep stack play and where are the main differences and nuances at. It would be great to do the same for 3b pots spots.

On the last board, do u ever use a pot size turn barrel on such dynamic board? only b50 or perhaps both sizes?

Thanks for explanation. 2 follow up questions:
A)Sometimes I forget about the more str8 fwd things, good point, no need to overcomplicate things.
B) If the strat i mentioned was the case, how would you best attack it? if a robot implemented that stragey perfectly, do u think it still would be more vulnerable to being attacked than 1 size only strat?
C) I didnt think that deep about point C which I think it is a very good point. So to clarify myself, in order to keep things as simple as possible(w/o dropping too much EV), but as efficient as possible, one should always focus on what is the most relevant part of the ranges in play(i.e , most represented handclasses), in what part of the distribution is the greatest advg at(or lack thereof), and tailor bet size and bet frequency according to that as a rough baseline before looking further in detail into other factors, such exact hand, blockers, equity hand vs range and vs hand, dynamics, etc in order to make the best strategical decisions?
On a sidenote; the "cleaner the graph" the simpler the strategy?. Ex: Clear polarly distributed ranges = 1 big size at lower freq. IF the graph is all over the place w peaks and valleys overlapping, that might mean that implementing various sizings depending on what parts of the ranges distribution you wanna focus on may be better and so on so forth?
Am I understanding correctly?

20:12 - 963tt 6x board 200bb deep. BTN now doesn't have a polarity advantage (bc deep BB slowplays more flops with sets+96 I guess). BTN has a BIG mid-range advantage. Doesn't this mean that choosing a smaller size like B33 is better? Which would lead to an increase in turn double barrel frequency I guess??? :)