[JNash]

Thanks for actually giving a thoughtful response (in contrast to many others...).

My main point was that tournament math is VERY different than ring-game math, and I wanted to show it with a concrete example. One can quibble over the precise probabilities (e.g. some posters correctly point out that saying you get to 2nd 100% of the time is too optimistic), but the key point is that in a ring-game the only challenge with AA is how to get as much out of it in EV terms as possible, since you have the best hand PF.
In a tourney, the value of AA is vastly different depending on how big your stack is, who your opponent is, how large the blinds are, how many players are left, how steep the payout gradient is, etc. etc.

The biggest thing I learned from doing the math is that in SNG the difference between 1st & 2nd is 20% payout (50% VS 30%), and the difference between 2nd & 4th is 30%. In thinking about a play near the bubble, it is simply incorrect to repeat the matra of "gotta go for 1st" That may be true in big tourneys where the payouts for 1st/2nd are proportionately so much bigger. In SNG's, putting yourself unnecessarily at risk of blowing 2nd just to improve your chances of getting 1st is questionable and depends on all the factors above.

BTW, the hand I busted out in was 99 vs KQo. In hindsight, I now believe the best play was to come in for 600 as you suggest. You still have a pretty good chance of stealing the blind, but you don't risk the doomsday scenario of being out right away.