This is something I came up with a while ago and I can't think of any real reasons why it wouldn't be a viable option in some specific spots. Imagine a game where there was an option between betting anywhere from 0 to all-in at any point of the game. The idea is pretty simple. When you are IP with a range advantage OTF, OTT or OTR you have an option between betting and checking with that part of your range usually. Now instead of just having a strategy where you bet or check, you would use a strategy where you bet or "zero-bet" your whole range. If you choose to "zero-bet" it is now the opponents turn to choose if he wants to call or raise this bet.

The reason why I think the mix of "zero-betting" and betting is better is because it adds another decision point in the game for OOP and kind of adds a new empty street to the game. Adding more streets to any poker game is usually beneficial for IP because he now has a lot more information to work on. This wouldn't always be the case though and one of those spots would be when the pot is 3bet and OOP has a range advantage against IP. If OOP knows IP is always going to bet or "zero-bet", OOP can just check-raise or check-call his entire range without having to worry about IP checking back. For that reason "zero-betting" works best in spots where OOP doesn't have a leading range.

Why I think this is interesting is because it could be used in many games like NLHE or PLO by min-betting instead of checking back. The only criteria for this to work in the same way as "zero-betting" is that the pot has to be large enough so that the min-bet isn't too big compared to the size of the pot. It could even work in a standard cbetting spot IP but its possible that the ratio between the min-bet and pot is too high that early. Anyway those or my thoughts on the subject and feel free to shoot it down if I'm missing something obvious here.