Regarding the weakening of ranges, i think he meant exploitatively vs some1 who over cbets. He didnt want to use the term widening since he would actually slowplay most of his strong hands.

You talked about delayed c-betting range on these flops, but we also
have to think about the times he probes the turn instead of checking
twice. Quite often, players will perceive our flop check back as a
weakness (that's not really true given how we constructed the ranges,
but he couldn't have known that) and donk into us, thereby flipping
the decision tree where we are now bluff catching

I guess this is just a terminology mistake by me, I meant our range we arrive at the turn with, after we checked back - our check-back range.

b) At the end of hand 1, you mentioned "weakening" of check calling
and check raising ranges, and I seem to have trouble understanding
these terms. Did you mean to say his check calling and raising ranges
were weakened? That was my guess, but I might be wrong.

Regarding the weakening of ranges, i think he meant exploitatively vs
some1 who over cbets. He didnt want to use the term widening since he
would actually slowplay most of his strong hands.
YES

d) QQ2hh hand was 3-handed, and in overall our c-bet % has to be lower
because we have 2 opponents instead of 1. Also, it's worth mentioning
that SB's cold calling range should have a decent amount of trips.
That said, I like the fact that our flop c-bet was way lower than in
hand 1 where we were HU against BB, but I seem to differ a bit about
the hand selection.

I was refering to HU situations, only. Once we bring in another player new strategies might be order, i.e. polarizing more.

e) You said we should be checking back trips + FD, but could you
elaborate on it a bit? If our assumption that they are not folding FD
is true, we are missing quite some value by checking back trips + FD,
regardless of how strong our FD is. Also, why are we checking back NFD
while betting weaker ones? Granted, we are playing mostly 1- or
2-street game with flushes on a paired board, but technically we are
pushing more equity with NFD. Maybe we should check this back because
it would suck more to get check raised with NFD, whereas weaker FD's
are easy bet/folds?

When holding trips+FD we are blocking a lot of villains continuing range, which is not good as we have a strong hand - therefore we might want to check back at least some of them. Checking back the NFD instead of weaker FDs because this hand has more intensive to check back. We have at least 1 overcard we can hit for free, also getting blown of our NFD is worse than getting raised of weaker one, A-.high has more SD value than the weak FDs-Pair.

Thanks for the feedback midori!

When holding trips+FD we are blocking a lot of villains continuing
range, which is not good as we have a strong hand - therefore we might
want to check back at least some of them. Checking back the NFD
instead of weaker FDs because this hand has more intensive to check
back. We have at least 1 overcard we can hit for free, also getting
blown of our NFD is worse than getting raised of weaker one, A-.high
has more SD value than the weak FDs-Pair.

Thanks for clarifying, Fernando. I agree that getting blown off our NFD is worse. On the other hand, if he does not check/raise often, we can also argue that NFD might be a better hand to barrel with, because we are charging his worse FD's with it.

I just wanted to point this out because, as obvious as this might sound (to you, at least), the optimal post-flop strategy depends on so many things. Here, it depends on villain's check/raise frequency and range, along with many other things. Some post-flop decisions are clear cut and not really arguable, while others might be far closer and one variable can just tip the scale. :)

-- midori

Sure, the BB strategy u posted might be a viable one (though ur check/check range might become very weak, but u could probably balanced this out somewhat). Creating those reasonable strategies is just a start, in order to maximize EV we need to compare EV's of certain lines against each other.