AA

This is specific to EP in Limit.
Hero has AA.

Assumptions.
Money is earnt by others' mistakes.
It is better to give opponents more opportunities to make mistakes.
AA's equity edge increases with #players.

Now I would really like to get shot down in flames here because my view flies in the face of common knowledge but I'm a newb, so go easy.

I advocate calling. Here's my (crappy) reasoning.

Any call made against AA is -EV and therefore I'd like as many people to make that mistake and for as much money as possible. Best case scenario - a capped ring game.
Raise - best case scenario - everyone folds.

Once you've accepted the fact that your win rate goes down (by roughly 54%)but your equity edge increases (by roughly 130% - I think) you're happy for any extra money in the pot.[the exact figures don't matter]

Now most people give me the explanation that you should raise because bad players will call anyway [ <font color="white">Bad players fold too </font> ]. Which, I admit, is a very profitable situation for you.
BUT
Call and even good players start calling in the -EV situation against your AA. Hands that a good player might have folded in the face of a raise now become raising hands eg. JTs. These good players are making their money from other people, not from you. And it's an easy 3 bet for you, again increasing the money in the pot.
This three bet situation is the optimal one. Even good players are more likely to pay two bets after already putting in one.

I find myself justifying the call with negative check\raise mentality. ie. I'd rather the chance of 1 or 3 bets [ <font color="white"> against 4-8 </font> ], than 2 or 0 [ <font color="white"> against 2-4 </font> ].

I call, knowing that if everyone calls behind me, I'm going to lose the hand 70% of the time. But I look at the long term. Not to mention the benefit of having the table know you can limp with monsters.

Someone tell me where I've gone wrong before I start beleiving my own crap.