Hi!
I won't give you advices.. I'll just express my thoughts here.
My approach: I split my correspondence chess tries and my OTB ones in two. First of all, I think it's not necessary to know all the lines of an opening by heart while playing correspondence chess. It's enough to know in details the ideas of the opening you play, pawn structures and all the possible endings you may enter when you play it. Secondly, in correspondence chess I seek for entering a line which is hard to be assessed properly by the today's engines. So to speak, an opening line where I can apply most of my overall chess understanding gained from my OTB play. And in the third place, I always try to play an opening in which I prepared at least one surprise for my opponent. For example, a new repertoire book is out (let's say GM6 or GM10) - everybody go crazy about it and start to play this repertoire. As for me, I always try to be the opponent. 
While in the OTB games, the first thing is to know by heart your main lines of your repertoire. No books available while playing, you know..  Then you play an opening that you prefer.. Next, you can play lines that are not computer approved, but complex...and thus giving you a way better chances for a win. And so on, and so on.. Almost completely different approach, I think. 
In the context of your questions: I recently started to play Triangle in some of my correspondence chess games. As a result, I play Marshall as black in every one of these games - not one of my opponents ventured to enter the Noteboom. While OTB it will be a hard task to know by heart every possible line of my Noteboom/Marshall repertoire. I would try to play Chebanenko instead. And I'm not surprised by the fact that the latter is more popular amongst the best OTB players. Imagine if they had to learn by heart all the Noteboom/Marshall complex lines together with all the other opening lines that are part of their broad repertoire they're obliged to know! 
I understand that there is a different approach. Yes, some people use the correspondence chess in order to become better in their OTB games. That's why they try to play the same openings in both variations of chess. But in my humble opinion, if they try to play their OTB openings in their correspondence chess games, they couldn't expect the same results even if they are very good OTB players.

Edit: As for the books you mentioned - I vote for Scherbakov's Triangle!