Glad you liked it! From the limited NL studying I've done I have seen the same blacking BDFD thing cropping up a couple times as well so was pretty cool to see it was a very big deal in PLO in this spot too

Haha yeah! Also just wanted to mention that your way of putting the narrative is amazing, (also the beautiful slides) makes it extremely easy to follow. I certainly wouldn't watch a theory video for the game I don't quite play if it's not excellent. Again, thanks for the effort you put in!

Thanks!
2:45 yeah variance, but also edges short are sometimes a bit higher depending on the lineups
6:30 nah those boards are way too high have to check range

I was thinking of doing my next recording on something like what you asked for with finding which combos we barrel river etc but it prob will be for a slightly different turn spot

So when I play (or anyone else that I consider good) I’m absolutely not trying to split my sizings into 3 on various turns. What I tried to show with the multiple sizings is the general trend of the bet sizings to try and understand the mechanics of how to structure our sizings across various textures. So for example on a flushing straightening card I’ll know that we don’t really bet small but on a brick flushing I can bet small for the reasons mentioned in the video. Or the brick turn just only pot or check. For turns like that I will just pick the one sizing that makes the most sense mechanically based on simple heuristics that I can remember and apply in game. So on a 2d I will just only bet a third and not really work with many larger bets

What becomes a bit more tricky are boards like the 5h or Jh for example where we both bet half and pot a lot. I imagine this is the type of board your question is mostly targeting.

For boards like that what I would do sizing wise depends a bit on the context of the spot. There are cases where I think trying to split your range into multiple sizings makes a lot of sense. These typically tend to be spots where the 2 sizings used are very far apart. So sometimes you see 33% and 100% sizings being used and you can imagine that the goal of our bets with those 2 sizings are significantly different. As such I believe the ev of our range goes down quite significantly if we start using 1 size of 50% or whatever because the hands that wanna pot really wanna pot and going smaller sucks, and the hands that go small really wanna go small. Whereas if we have a 50 and 100 sizing being used a significant amount of the time and we decide to use one 75% sizing sure we lose some fold equity/equity denial by not potting the combos that really wanna pot, and yeah we prob lose some ev from hands that can bet fold with a 50% sizing but not 75 but I don’t believe those ev changes will be big enough that it makes up for us executing a better strategy. Only betting one size of course is significantly easier to play than betting 2 (but don’t underestimate the one size starts you still need to study them hard!).

I would also recommend thinking about how often sizings are used based on betting volume which is simply frequency x amount of bb. So in a generic river spot if we pot 10% and bet 1/5th pot 30% I would say the potting frequency is definitely worth looking at. But if it’s the other way around and we pot 30% and bet small 10% I won’t really care about the small sizing and only ever pot.

So basically there isn’t one clear answer to to your question unfortunately and you kinda just have to think about the spot and figure out what makes the most sense conceptually