Hi everyone! I stumbled upon c-betting (again) and I'm currently wondering about the size that we want to use when rangebetting a certain flop as the PFR. We're currently witnessing the age of the 1/3-bet. I keep hearing from different sources that betting our whole range is however by no means necessarily tied to betting small.

For instance, in Peter Clarke's most recent "Essays on Poker - Strategic Options", it says:
"The size that we should choose [for the range bet] will be driven by
the strength of our value range. If most of our value hands have
75% equity plus, then we might prefer going for a 75% pot-sized
bet rather than the more common 33% pot-sized bet. It is
always in our interests to ensure faster pot growth when our
value hands are dominant in equity.

If we flip this round and look at things from the point of view of the player facing the
bet, the solver will overfold (meaning fold more than the pot
odds would suggest in an equal range situation) less to the
bigger bet than to a smaller bet. For example, on a very
favourable flop for the UTG raiser such as KhKc7d, BB’s main
weakness is an abundance of air hands and these fold to any
bet-size. Therefore, the smaller c-bet will be very effective for
UTG."

There is not much more of a explanation given. However, this does still confuse me. We only range c-bet in the first place when we find our range holding a relevant equity and nut advantage, so our value hands will always obtain >75% equity, right? How should that help us differentiating different sizings when range c-betting?

Would a suitable heuristic be to range c-bet small on boards where the PFC will have a hard time finding any hands to defend with (e.g. KK7rb) and go large on boards where we do hold a range and nut advantage but the PFC is gonna have an abundance of paired hands that can pay us off (e.g. AK8rb)?

Can anyone illuminate this?