Thoughts on bet sizing

[Dazarath]

I was thinking about a couple of bet sizing concepts and I was hoping that this forum could give me some feedback on my ideas. The two concepts I wanted to discuss were 4-bet sizing and continuation betting in a 3-bet pot.

4-bet sizing:
Let's say we're in a 2/4 game, and the hero opens in the CO for 14. The BB 3-bets to 50. Now, a lot of players, if they are going to 4-bet, will 4-bet to 150ish or around the pot. But I was wondering is this really necessary? Let's say instead I 4-bet to 125 (or 130). If stacks are 100 BB, then are there any hands that can profitably call an extra 75 but not 100? In 4-bet pots, the opponent's implied odds are already almost cut down to nothing, so to me it seems like it's not really necessary to make a pot sized raise. The advantage of doing this would allow you to balance your 87s 4-bets with your AA 4-bets, while also making it cheaper for the times you're bluffing. Normally, if you make it 150, you're putting in an extra 136 to win ~64. But now, you'd be putting in 111 to win ~64, which gives you slightly better odds on the times you 4-bet something like a suited connector. Keep in mind that this is only worthwhile, though, if we can make the assumption that in the situations where we have the better hand, we're not giving up too much EV. Please discuss or if I'm wrong, I'd like to know what I'm missing here.

Continuation betting in 3-bet pots:
Sort of related to the above, is continuation betting after you 3-bet another player. Let's assume that my normal continuation bet is 3/4 pot. We'll say 100 BB stacks at 2/4 again. Villain opens for 14 in the CO and hero 3-bets from the blinds to 50. Villain calls and pot is now ~100. Because the pot is bloated already, I'm thinking that it's not necessary to c-bet 3/4 PSB in this situation. If I c-bet let's say 68 vs 76, I can't think of any hands that could profitably call one but not the other. Maybe someone could come up with an argument that even less is necessary. For example, if I could show (I'm not arguing that this is true, I'm just saying "if") only needed to c-bet 60, then I gain the two following advantages:

1) Since there is a lot of light 3-betting, we can assume that I miss the flop a decent amount. I know using the word "decent" doesn't mean anything, but it'll be a pain to try to calculate an exact number. I definitely miss the flop more than I would if my 3-betting range were AA-QQ/AK. So in the times where my c-bet doesn't take it down and I have nothing, I'm saving myself a little more money.
2) There are some mid-stakes players who counter light 3-betting by shoving over the c-bet. If I had c-bet 76, then the villain would shove 350 to win 176. But now, he's shoving 350 to win 160. So we manage to cut down his odds for shoving the flop and reduce the EV of the play by a little.

Of course, one can argue that it's trivial either way, and it's probably true. I guess it would be like discussing opening to 12 vs 14 vs 16. I actually wanted to discuss the 4-bet sizing more, as I think there is more merit to that.

One of the reasons I don't 4-bet light too often is that I feel that I'm getting terrible odds on the bluff. If I could be convinced that 4-betting a lesser amount would still have around the same EV when I have a monster, but would allow me to 4-bet light more profitably, then I would see a better reason to use that in my arsenal.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can give me useful feedback.