Hey, I thought about two concepts for applying overbetting and "finding spots" recently and I would like to discuss them...

The first approach that I also feel is the one that any solver would take is sort of

1. "overbetting when it is dictated by position, board structure and the subsequent strength of both players ranges"...

What you find for example in Pokersnowie is that on certain boards in a certain spot his recommended betsize for the entire range would be 2xPOT which it then does with a polarized range and then he checks a lot of the hands that any "normal regular" on typical stakes would usually bet 1/3 to 3/4.

1. The 2nd approach, that I feel is most usually used by the "average reg" is the sort of approach where your own hand gives you
   a) an information advantage and/or
   b) a strong incentive to overbet the pot for certain

which CAN but usually IMO doesn't overlap with a general analysis of the board structure / equity distribution of the ranges.

So an example for 1 (in Pokersnowie) would be:

UTG open 1/2 POT BB flats
Flop: AK6 rainbow

BB checks

Snowies proposed betsize is now 2x POT and he does it 100% with:

AA, KK, 66, AK, 55, QJo, QJs, QTs, JTs, A6s
and then >70% with: 77, 88

and checks: A2-AQ, any K, TT-QQ

whereas "general population" would probably
bet 1/3-3/4
with any A, some Kx, Gutshotdraws etc.

A sort of typical example for 2 is lets say:

HERO Bu opens 33, BB calls
FLOP: T37 rainbow
check, bet 1/2 POT, call
TURN: 7
check, bet 1/2 POT, call
RIVER: 3
check, Hero now "overbets because BB can never have TT, some draws bust, he can herocall with Tx and because he is greedy with quads" whereas a solver (Snowie again) plays 1/2 Pot river w Tx, 7x, 3x, JJ-AA and some bluffs simply because the range distribution dictates a 1/2 POT betsize.

...

Sometimes on the felt I am torn apart between these two concepts since in general I feeld concept 2 is largely overused by most players and therefore allows for a ton of betsize-based hand reading...
it is usually much harder to be alert and clairvoyant enough to always be spotting spots for hard polarization as seen in example 1 and then execute with the right amount of especially air (because the correct amount of air is usually not just the most obvious combodraw/blocker etc.)
But I can obviously also see the upside of simply looking at the information advantage of your own hand (e.g.: unbeatable) and then pound on a likely weakness of villain of calling too much bc of herocall tendency or whatever.

Soo... what is your approach? I at least feel I way too often use my cards to determine wether or not I want to overbet instead of the positions and the board texture.