HOH2 Structured Hand EV contradiction p168-171

[Pokerlogist]

There appears to be a serious contradiction in Harrington on Holdem 2. On page 168 he gets the biggest expectation from going allin, +$7,171 (EV) from the loosest player C. Then on page 171, his only negative expectation,-$4,771, is Case 3 when all 4 players behind are loose like player C. This doesn't make intuitive sense. It seems like if one loose player causes a large +EV, then having 4 of those should be +EV too.

What am I missing?

[Pokerlogist]

Okay I went I did the math calculations and Harrington's calculations matched mine closely. I also found that with 1,2, or 3 loose C-type players the overall expecation is still positive but dwindles. With four loose ones the expectation is negative. It is a bit counter-intuitive to me.

I guess it works that way because the looser callers take away the opportunity for the uncontested big win more often than tighter ones. They don't pay off enough to make up for it.

So I answered my own question.

There a lot of "egdy" material in HOH2, but after some thought, I haven't found a lot with which to disagree.