Should Ace-little be played? If so, when?

The literature would indicate that in a tounament one should not play anything worse than A-Q in late position, and A-K in early position. Is this too conservative? I've been getting whooped lately by small aces. Last night I was at the second to the last table in a NL turny; blinds were 1000/500; I was getting lousy hands and being blinded out; I had to take the big ($1000) blind with only $1,300 left. So I had $1000 in the pot and $300 left in my stack. I get dealt 6 4 offsuit. Great. {( Two limpers plus me saw the flop. Flop = A 6 2 rainbow. I hit a chunk of it, but damn that ace! I figure someone has an Ace so I'm probably beat, but if I pass and fold, I'm mortally wounded with only $300 left, which will force me all-in on the next hand when I'll have to be the small ($500) blind. I figure I'm better off going all-in now, with the chance of improving and winning with two pair, or who knows, maybe I'll hit the jackpot and draw 3-of-a-kind, in which event I'll win a decent sized pot and be back in the game. First limper folds. The second limper calls. Second limper must have Ace something, presumably no less than AK, AQ, AJ, or maybe even A-10. A "6" comes on the flop, giving me three 6's!!!!! Yes! I'm back in the game! Aces can't beat me now! River is a rag. My opponent turns over A6 for a full house! The guy had been playing hands like that all night and had a huge stack. Again, am I playing too tight? Two hands earlier I passed with QJ. Was that a mistake? I've made second-to-the-last table in 3 out of the last 5 tournaments I've been in, and came in second place at the final table in one of them. I can't tell if I'm playing WELL enough to get to the second-to-the-last table, or if I'm playing so poorly I ONLY get to the Second-to-the-last-table.