[RagnarPirate]

Most of the comments agree with your assessment. And in a sense I do as well, although I doubt proof is possible. I would suggest that a portion of the original 30k extra equity has been realized in the first hand so the added value is slightly less than the initial buy in. The amount less would be based on the number of opponents. The new value would be 2 x (n-1)/n where n is the number of original participants. This assumes that the player was average. If the player was poor the value would be less because more of his buy-in was already included in your starting equity. If the player was better than you it would be greater (some of your buy-in was included in his equity). To tell the truth I think the ability to make more moves (and survive losses) as an early table leader more than compensates for one less bad player in the tournament. Therefore, double equity is a reasonable estimate.