Pot equity questions

[Mr.ScragglyBeard]

Hello,

I've been reading "Small Stakes Hold 'em" and I'm having a hard time understanding the pot equity concept. I figured I would post what I kind of get, and ask questions along the way. If I'm wrong, please tell me where I'm making a mistake - just assume I'm slow, and explain the correct line of though as simply as humanly possible (aka... avoid crazy complicated math).

1) So let's say the flop comes down and I'm drawing to a nut flush - I have 9 outs, or roughly a 36% chance of making the best hand BY THE RIVER. Let's also say that the pot is $1000 at this point. If I understand correctly, my pot equity (or "fair share") is therefore 36% of $1000, or $360 dollars. But why is pot equity measured with two cards to come vs. one card to come? Shouldn't I be thinking of my pot equity as 18% ($180) since I'm going to be calling to see one card?

2) The 2nd thing I'm unclear about is the so called "pot equity edge". Here's what I understand (same example as above). If you have 4 other people calling your bet, you are responsible for 20% of the new money (100% new money / 5 [4 others + you] = 20%). Under the 36% pot equity concept (playing the nut flush draw to the river), I can see where you get an "equity edge" of 16% (36%-20%=16%). But... again, that's presuming you're going to play your hand all the way to the river. If you're only betting to see one card, and therefore have a likelihood of hitting your flush only 18% of the time, wouldn't you need at least FIVE people to call (100% / 6 = 16.5%) in order to get any edge at all?

3) Finally, would you make a bet that is always UNDER your pot equity? In the 18% example, would you bet something like $175, or in the 36% example, a smidge under $360?

I guess that's all I can think of for now - am I completely missing something? Do you ALWAYS determine pot equity based on the turn AND river? If that's the case, aren't pot odds a better tool to use, since they focus on one card to come?

Help me please! Sorry about the length of this post, and the ball-park nature of my numbers.

Cheers.