Lately I’ve been using a 1/3 pot cbet size on every texture vs weak regs with my entire range, and with draws/air vs fish who play fit or fold postflop. It is common knowledge that you need to size up your cbets on wetter boards and I do when I have a value hand vs a drooler. It’s worth noticing that I’m playing NL25 in a very fishy pool

From Carroters book:
- Hero is more likely to check on wetter flops especially with poor equity hands and air. On these textures he generally has less air, more value hands, and higher equity hands when he c-bets. Building a bigger pot is therefore in the interests of his range.
- On wet boards, there are more draws that Villain can be calling with and so Hero can extract more value from these hands by betting bigger and making Villain's calls with these hands less profitable.

From what I read and what I know, cbets on wetter boards should be bigger, but my exploitative approach seems working well. Yeah my ranges are pretty unbalanced, but who cares since anyone isn’t aware of?
What I am missing overall? Is this strategy a huge leak of mine?

"Common knowledge" is often wrong. Optimal sizes depend on how ranges interact on various boards given a variety of different action sequences and potential runouts, not just on how "wet" or "dry" a board is.

From what I understand, on dynamic boards boards that connect with both players ranges, the equity distributions are going to be similar and less range asymmetry will exist. Each player will have a bunch of valuebets, a bunch of high equity bluffs, and the need to deny equity becomes greater, thus prompting the need for bigger sizings. This is why you see much larger sizings used in PLO more frequently, as equities run closer and ranges hit flops in much more meaningful ways than in NLHE where static textures and range asymmetry is much more common.

Sounds good on the surface, but what happens when you take this idea too far is that your opponent is getting good odds to chase his draws because you've weakened your value range. That, or you're gonna get bluff raised a ton imo.

This is why I don't like the idea of denying equity.

I've been toying with different betsizes recently and I've arrived at this process for sizing my bets:

I look at the flop and ask myself how many flushes, straights, sets and two pair hands my opponent could hit on that flop. The lower the number of those combos, the bigger my sizing. The higher the number of those combos, the smaller my sizing.