Lets say we cbet the flop BvB, and the turn is a total brick, IE the classic PIO spot to overbet the turn.

I've noticed many coaches go for a slight overbet, something around 120% of the pot.

What I'm wondering is, why not bet larger, closer to 200% of the pot?

We have a polar range, after all, and betting twice the pot, in a 100bb situation, makes it easier to get stacks in on the river, while still leaving enough behind that we have FE.

For example, 100 deep, we open to 3x, so the pot is 6. We bet 2 on the flop, he calls, now the pot is 10.

If we bet 12 and he calls, the pot is 34 and we have 83 behind.

But if we bet 18 and he calls, the pot is 46, and we have 77 behind.

Obviously both of these are arbitrary bet sizes, and we could bet 75% or 150% or 250%, but it seems the most common turn overbet is around 110-120%, whereas the one that makes more sense to me intuitively is 180-200%.

I'm curious what the reasoning behind the smaller overbet is, and if there are big drawbacks to the larger one, either in theory or for exploitative reasons.

Obviously we can balance any size, but I don't understand why we would choose one over the other.