[nath]

Man those stacks are short.
Anyway:
At the final table, situations do come up where when someone can possibly be eliminated on a hand that $EV comes into consideration as different from cEV. In this hand, a fold will probably move me up one spot in the money, possibly two. If I call and lose, I'm out, possibly 7th, and the call is only so very slightly better than breakeven chipwise, if that (i'm between a 4 to 4.5:1 dog against one overpair, let alone two if one has AA and one has KK) that the potential cost in real money isn't worth the potential gain in chips.
Here the effect of the payout structure does play a determining factor. But we are at the final table dealing with a multi-way all in with a call that may be breakeven at best and almost surely is not. (There's little range involved here. I pretty clearly have the worst hand. There's no chance the two plays who have me covered are both sitting on JJ or AK.)
In the Hank Azaria hand, Azaria had the pot odds to make this call if his opponent's range was exactly AA. Factor in any chance at all that he's overplaying AKs or QQ and it's a clear call by the time the fourth raise goes in.

What it really comes down to is that saying things like "I don't make this call even with the pot odds, because I know I'm beat," shows a lack of understanding of what pot odds are and how to apply them.