This was ununderstandable for me, so I choose another method, I remembered - its from Verneer book. Here is the example how he calculates:

More Math, behind 4-bet jamming medium pockets: We said that if the villain is 3-betting us with a range of ~12%, that range will include a lot of hands that he's going to be folding. Roughly around 2/3 of the hands he is 3-betting he's going to be folding. Vs. a range of TT+, AQ+, a hand like 66 has 38% equity when called. So, assuming 100 BB stacks: - 66% of the time villain 3-bet/folds. We win 13 BB's (our 3 that we opened with and their 10 which they 3-bet with). - 33% of the time they call and we have 38% equity vs. their range. Our share of equity in a 200 BB pot is 76 BBs. Since we risk 97 BB's to do it, the play will cost us 21 BB's in the long run. So: 66% (+13 BBs) + 33% (-21 BB's) = +1.65 BB's.

So I put my numbers, and instead of BBs I use $.

36% of the time we win 1.25 $ becasue he folds.

64% he calls and we have 40% equity, so in 20$ pot our equity share is 8$. We are risking 9.7$ to to this, so in the long run this will loose 1.7$.

So, 0.36 * 1.25 + 0.64 * (-1.7) = -0.638 $

so according to verneer's math, we are loosing by this move.

Ok, if we have 42% win equity, then we have equity share 8.4$, so we loose in the long run 9.7-8.4= 1.3$

So, 0.36 * 1.25 + 0.64 * (-1.3) = -0.382 $

still negative ev.

We actually getting even profit from it ~2,80 (vs 1st range)

The result differs a lot from you method (assuming we put the same win equities). Why could that be? Different methods should still calculate the same result.