[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
@Aaron
No reason to go tilt and miss the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is on tilt? You're just not making any sense.

[ QUOTE ]
VB was first designed for medium or higher limits. I stated this because the concepts - when and what you VB - had to been adjusted to LLH in the last years. Whats your problem with this basic insight?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Designed" for medium or higher limits? The concept of value betting is completely independent of the limits (and in fact, the style of poker being played). I don't know what "basic insight" you're referring to because it seems like you're going backwards and trying to deconstruct the notion of a "value bet" based on what you think people once did at "medium or higher limits" and that there was a time that "value betting" didn't exist in "LLH" (assumed to be "Low Limit Hold'em").

[ QUOTE ]
Pot Equity applies on every bet-(or raise-)decision, regardless if a hand is completed or not. It would be interesting to here from you, dear poker-friend, how you make your bet-decisions on the river. Especially your VBs. What do you consider?

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "pot equity". Maybe that might clear things up a bit.

Regarding your question, in a heads up situation, you consider the range of hands with which villain will call. If you are ahead of approximately 55% of those hands, then you can successfully bet for value.

As pots become more multiway, the estimation becomes much more complex as you are behind more often yet get called by more hands. I have worked through a number of calculations based on various assumptions, and the best estimates I've seen so far is to treat it as if you were heads up.

[ QUOTE ]
Last, i´m here to talk about poker-problems and don´t care about "what everybody else means" here and there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're thinking about it in your own head, you can use whatever words you want to describe whatever situations you choose to consider. But if you want others to understand what you're saying, it's important that the same language be used.