Very interesting, nice post. One thing I'm wondering about: if I recall correctly, in your original post, you hypothesized that the value of stack sizes would be logarithmic in part because players with larger stacks had more moves available to them than those who were shorter. They have chips to back up their bluffs, discourage people from bluffing at them, etc. But those factors have more to do with the other stacks at your table than with the relationship of your stack to the average in the tournament.

Similarly, I would expect that, assuming you were an above average player for your table, chips you earned beyond the size of your next largest opponent would be less valuable since you would not be able to invest them in +cEV situations. I guess what I'm getting at is that this formula may miss a lot of the value that is dependent on the size of your stack relative to others at your table. I don't know enough about math to answer this: would using the same formula, but would substituting the average stack at your table for Q approximate the worth of your stack relative to others at your table?

Thanks again for the interesting post.