So, I have been doing alot of solving recently with plenty of bet sizes and so on. I was railing some of the big boys on GG few days ago. I saw that some of them used certain flop sizings on flop textures which in my solves the solver never uses. I do understand that this might have been done because of exploitative reasons.

That got me thinking that, lets say we have two solves. One with possible flop cbet sizes given 33%, 50% and 100% of the pot or check. Then we have another solve with only one cbet size, in this case 50%. The flop texture and everything, including pot size etc. is exactly the same in the both solves.
Now if we look at the first solve on the flop (sizes given 33,50,100), our 50% cbet range looks very different if we compare it to the second solve which only has the option to cbet 50% or check. My question here is which one of these solves range should we use? What Im chasing here is that if we can use the 2nd solve's range, does this mean that we can also solve plenty of other solves only using one sizing and use the ranges of those solves? Hopefully I was able to explain even somewhat clearly what I mean

simplifying strategies to 1 or 2 sizings is a compromise a lot of good players make

using a sizing that the solver doesn't in some spots is okay

Happy to hear since all my solver work have been towards using max 2 sizing on any given texture.

Just out of interest, what kind of reasons would one have to differ from solver's sizings used? I can just think of exploitative reasons.

Just to simplify your strategy, conserve mental energy for more important decisions. C-betting any reasonable amount will rarely change the EV of a spot to any significant degree. Even c-betting vs. not c-betting any particular hand almost never has a big effect on EV.

The main thing is to have reasonable c-betting frequencies and balanced ranges. C-betting 1/3 pot vs. 2/3 vs. full pot is not where the money is won in poker.