My C Net Adjusted too low?

[Glavryba]

Why can the "My C Net adjusted" value for any individual tournament drop below the initial buy-in for that tournament?
How can I expect to lose more than I had invested in any tournament?
-----
Thanks.

[kraada]

That value is based on the change in ICM expectation based on what would have happened if things had run out as expected and how things did run out. Since you can win more than the value of a buy-in, the net adjusted can be more than that value also.

A simple example:

You're in with AA 4 handed in a single table SNG that pays 5-3-2 against KK, KK and QQ. QQ has 1 more chip than you, you have KK and KK covered. You're a big favorite to win and be a massive chip leader - so your equity is very close to a net of +4x your initial buy-in. If you then lose your net adjusted will show you being down close to 4 buy-ins . . . because that's what you very nearly should have won!

There's a lot more complicated situations than that of course, but that's a simple way to understand how these things can add up to "cost" you more than a buy-in.

[Glavryba]

Sorry,

That value is based on the change in ICM expectation based on what would have happened if things had run out as expected and how things did run out. Since you can win more than the value of a buy-in, the net adjusted can be more than that value also.

it's obvious that one can win more than a buy-in in a tournament, sure - but how can one lose more than that? Talking about SNG 5-3-2 and ICM, I'd expect "My C Net Adjusted" to be restricted by the same limits as "My C Net won" - from (minus) buy-in+fee and up to 50% of the prize pool

A simple example:

You're in with AA 4 handed in a single table SNG that pays 5-3-2 against KK, KK and QQ. QQ has 1 more chip than you, you have KK and KK covered. You're a big favorite to win and be a massive chip leader - so your equity is very close to a net of +4x your initial buy-in. If you then lose your net adjusted will show you being down close to 4 buy-ins . . . because that's what you very nearly should have won!

There's a lot more complicated situations than that of course, but that's a simple way to understand how these things can add up to "cost" you more than a buy-in.

Even in this case, +4x then -4x gives something close to zero in the end.

Or you're talking about like someone won an all-in with ~72 against aces, and then (while still not ITM) lost his entire big stack in a similar case - so, the result will show something close to -2*(buy-in) ?
Looks strange, though.

[kraada]

In my example your expected win is very close to +4BI and your actual win is -1BI. That's a difference of 5BI and that's what we're using in Net Adjusted winnings - the difference between your expectation and your actual results.