I have been studying c-betting pretty extensively lately and I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on when to (i) range c-bet, (ii) selectively c-bet or (iii) range check. I aim to extend my understanding of c-bets towards the specific sizings I'm using. Currently, my approach is pretty simplistic. Go 1/3 if range c-bet, and bet around 1/2 when we're betting selectively with a polarized range.

The general justification for betting 1/3 is that on certain flops, we obtain (i) range advantage, (ii) nut advantage and (iii) are incentivized to bet our medium strength SDV hands to deny equity vs. the PFC's folding range (e.g. K82rb BU vs. BB). In this situation, our whole range (incl. all the weaker hands) will want to bet and thus we go for a small 1/3 sizing. However, several times I have heard people saying that actually big bets are preferred when we have the clear nut advantage, most recently in this article.

This makes me wonder whether we actually might want to employ a multi-size strategy when range c-betting where
1. our nutted hands and nut potential bluffs go for a big sizing
2. everything else goes for 1/3

Do you guys implement something like this? In general I very much like the idea and it seems very much in line with the theory behind overbetting (maximize value with top of value range and top of bluffing range by overbetting). We would basically implement the same logic into a range c-bet where we bet big with the same type of range composition and bet the rest of our range for 1/3.

I'm just wondering how we defend vs. check/raises then once we did bet 1/3, as we will sincerely miss value hands in this branch of the game tree.