Marshmallowliebe

Hi Guys,
I was wondering why everyone is using 33% as a small cbet sizing.
Nearly all of the other Regs I play against (200z) use 33% as their small sizing of choice while Ben Sulsky and OTB Seem to use 33% and I myself usually use 25%. Pretty sure Paul Atwal also uses 25%.
There's no real reasoning behind this for me - I assume that the EV differences are very marginal but is there a reason why 33% is better than 25% or why 28% is better?
Has anyone done any work on that?
Thank you for your input
Have a great day

Dear RIO,
I'd like to ask you all about how you would approach my situation(the short'ish' version):
A year ago I was a student trying to become a professional when a Pokerpro came up to me and offered to stake me for higher limits.
The deal would look like this: I play NL200-NL1000 online and he'd pay me 12€/Hour and keep all the winnings and Rakeback. Every month I get 1€ more to my hourly and if somebody wants to reevaluate it has to be done 1 month in advance to the change of the system and after 1 year we will rediscuss everything.
I started playing and EV was pretty much break even. (Rakeback obviously already paid my Salary) However, the real numbers went down and I went about 9k below EV.
I told him I am not comfortable losing that much money anymore (as a student with no money losing 9k is absolutely insane!!! even though logically it shouldn't impact me.) and that my volume suffered a bit because of that. We stopped raising my salary at 15€/Hour because of that.
So I told him I'd rather play NL100z for a while where I grinded out a steady 5bb/100 Winrate and worked a lot on my game.(roughly 40$ EV hourly on Stars over 200k hands).
I made about 13k in EV and 9k in actual $$$ on 100z so again I am running very poorly.
I also made 5-8k in Tournaments during this time. (EV unmeasurable)
What is also important to know: Everywhere I play but stars he got extra Rakeback because of him having affiliate deals so Rakeback is a lot better.
A few weeks ago he told me to play on another side NL200-NL1000 again because I am way better now and he gets crazy Rakeback there. No sufficient sample size so far but I am up about 2-3k and it felt like I was running poorly. With his rakebackdeal, we get roughly 60-70% Rakeback or something like that so it might be possible for me to make him 10k+/Month without having a winrate! (I am pretty positive that I have a winrate but only time will tell!)
Now my question is:
I need to reevaluate the deal. I can afford nl100z by now which gives me an hourly of ~40$. I can not afford to play nl200-nl1000 on my own.
I got about 15000€ this year from him as salary.
I want him to make money on me but at the same time I am in my early twenties and want/need to make money. I do not how long this income will be an option and 15€/hour when I can make 40$ on my own is just weird. Nl100z is basically risk/variance free 40$ hourly!!! This is insane for someone my age!
10k+/Month ONLY with Rakeback? That is just nutttttttz.
How should I approach the situation, what deal should I offer him? What is reasonable?
Nl100z is basically risk-free for him so I need to get a huge cut if he wants to "stake" me there (which is basically me being nice)
NL200-NL1000 can go up or down no sample size yet so risk is higher. But I want to take the higher hourly option.
I really want this deal to end good for him, we became good friends along the way but at the same time, I need to ask for better payment or some kind of profit split.
What are your suggestions? How would you approach this situation? What should I offer him?
Excuse my bad English and this super long read
Love you all,
M