I've heard Andrew and Nate talk about balancing ranges and felt I've had cursory undering of the concepts.  It's funny now that I think about it Mike Caro has been talking about it for decades (judging from the dates of his articles; haven't been playing nearly that long) but I flat out didn't get it.  An example is somewhere in the Maryland Liveaments series Adrew faces a triple barrel donk bet and he talks about how you don't need to be able to put him on a hand and he will call with T8 (TP on wettish board, which is a better bluff catcher because of blockers) before he would with AA.  Before I would say I kinda get it, but not nearly enough to ever put that play into practice (folding an overpair but calling with TP). 

Not too long ago I read Applications of No-Limit Hold em, and more importantly work through the examples Mr. Janda goes through at the end for myself before reading them (long and tedious process).  I now feel I have a much much better understanding of both balanced and explotative ranges, while simultaneously realizing there is so much more I don't know.  I read Mathmatics of Poker a little bit at a book store one time, and it made my head hurt.  It was much too dense for me (this was also at a time when I had a job and couldn't devote as much time to the game).  I'm not saying that AONLHE is not dense, it is, just not not on the same level as MOP.  Then there's Ed Miller's 1%, which from my understanding is even less dense than AONLHE and covers the same concepts.  I was actually choosing between 1% and AONLHE shortly after 1% was released, and Mr. Miller's cost more and I just didn't like his marketing.  It felt like an Amway recruitment; it just rubbed me the wrong way.  So theres my ringing endorsement of AONLHE, but I'm sure MOP and 1% will be just as good as long as you put pen to paper and try using the concepts to balance your own ranges.  I should also mention that AONLHE goes through 6-max cash game scenerious assuming everyone has 100BB stacks.  However there is no reason why you can't use the same concepts and apply them to different stack sizes and antes, it will just take some work.  

As far as software I've tried the free versions of Flopzilla, Combonator, Equilab, and CREV.  Of those I think the registered version of Combonator would be best for range balancing exercises.  It has a standard hand selection chart, and you can color code each hand into groups, which would be correlated to what action you choose.  I probably didn't say that well, but an example would be group1 hands would be your c/c range, group2 would be c/r as a bluff, group3 would be c/r for value, and group4 c/f.  If certain combos of hands are in different ranges (for example AhQx is in your bluff raising range but the rest or in your folding range) then it just shows up as gray, which you could mouse over to see exactly where you put each individual within that combo.  There are only 8 groups which probably isn't enough given the possible decision points so you might have to do analysis one street at a time.  I have a feeling the most effective would be to use Combonator to slice up your range on each street and copy/paste them into CREV decision points, but I haven't been too keen on spending $145 to find out. Odds Oracle seems like a cool and useful tool once you learn how to use it, but visualizing balanced ranges doesn't seem to me like its is one of it's strengths. 

The standard series format here is 40-60 minute videos, in a 4-6 or more part series.  The reason is that's about how long it takes to get through a deep run in any particular tournament, or that's about how much you can dive into any single theory topic.  

That doesn't have to be the case for the type of video being discussed here.  You could take one hand and make it a 1-2 part series.  With everything there is to talk about (how player reads and stack sizes influence, which hands go into which lines {c/r, c/r/f, b/f, b/c, ect} on each street, how sizing effects which hands go into which lines, which lines have no hands in them, for all 4 streets of action) 1-2 parts seems about right for one hand.  And I think this type of analysis can be beneficial in a vacuum.  Meaning if you wanted to do a 6 part series you can take a random hand from a live event, then when done with that take a random hand from an online hand that's in a totally different stage of the tournament with totally different player types.  

So basically I say do just one hand in 1-2 parts and see how it goes.  Get feedback and build from there.  If it goes well then plan a 6 part series.