[Slim Pickens]

I think the same argument can be made with a single variable. Chip utility is defined such that the utility of one's chips U(C) is equal to his $ expectation given that number of chips. ICM says U(C) is linear and the intercept is zero. We want to correct this for the blinds by saying the intercept is greater than zero since there is a constant utility (or alternately, a constant $EV) of remaining in a tournament for an additional hand. Gigabet takes it farther to say that U(C) is non-linear and convex (over many parts of the curve) because in certain situations the [(product of the playing-and-winning probability with the utility if won)+(product of the playing-and-losing probability with the utility if lost)] is larger than the utility of not playing. I think this is the same idea you have, just with a different set of variables. I think about my opponents' utility function, mostly in the context of any non-linearities being caused by stupidity, but I've never turned it around to think about my own in a similar way: that not all the non-linearities are bad. Anyways, thanks for the post. It gave me a good idea... even if I'm not quite able to explain it yet.

SlimP