No matter what we do, we're kicking villain's ass in the long run, it's just a question of how badly his ass is being kicked. This is what happens when we get into good spots where our range is way ahead of his range.

In a static world where villain always makes the same play, then shoving our entire range is bad. He's either going to call or he's not. If so, then we should value bet thin and never bluff. If not, then we should bluff a lot and only value bet really good hands. Balance isn't important against crappy players who don't adjust. The only strategies that are optimal in a vacuum are the two most un-balanced ranges we can have.

As soon as villain is capable of adjusting to our range, then the un-balanced ranges suck. Thin value bets are designed to exploit donkeys, but this range results in the worst outcome on the entire chart if villain plays well against it. Likewise, the bluffy range sucks against good players, but not quite as bad as the thin value betting range.

The Minimax Theorem from game theory says that a good strategy for games is to optimize our worst possible outcome. In other words, against good players we should do whatever maximizes our overall EV assuming that villain is going play optimally against us. According to the Minimax Theorem our best play is to shove our entire range because then our EV will always be at least 30.

This is sort of a variant of the Prisoner's Dilemma. We can guarantee an EV of 30. If we try and get greedy by bluffing too much or not enough, we might win more than this in the short run if we stay one step ahead of villain, but that's really hard to do against good players. If we can't do it then we're better off doing what Gogol's Nose did and saying fuck it I'm shoving my whole range.