Was really interesting, but Occam's razor tells me my lack of full comprehension and the near-absolute rejection of the pilot wave theory, mean there's probably a lot more to it than just "Oh Heisenberg and those jerks were first, otherwise Pilot Wave would be the primary theory..."
It seems that in both Quantum and Bohmian, particles behave like both a wave and a particle, so any experiment that uses the wave-particle duality can be explained by either. Where they do differ is in explaining how a particle can be described as either a wave or a particle at the same time. Given how we can't extricate this intrication, the only way to say one is more likely is to apply philosophy to it. A bit like explaining protons and neutrons before the LHC: you can have fancy ideas about what's in it, but you can't know until you split one in half (and if you can't, for all we know it's really a single particle not made of other smaller ones). So whether a particle is probabilistic in its position and speed (?), or a tangible particle bouncing on itself deterministically isn't really relevant to do applied physics: both behave in the same way in the experiments and applications we do.
Something though: in the Bohmian "bouncing on its own wave" particle, wouldn't you need a substrate, a medium to bounce on? Or is that explained with Quantum or other physics?