[doubledummy]

So what you are really asking is, are you a better player than the pre flop odds off an all in with AA against 4 with potential of 6 runners. against 4 runners you are much better than the 20% you need for it to be +EV, however if you were capable of crushing the game, then your $100 is going to bring you much more in time. ie you play 3 hours get to $600 so are $500 up.

When you go all in for your $100 lets assume you win 1 in 3. 2 in 3 times the rest of the session is a reloaded $100 to get to 500, and 1 in three is automatically at 500 without the three hours of play, so presumably the three hours nets you $900 (500 standard profit plus the $400 we win with AA)

Therefore the three sessions provide a win rate of $1900 for $500, when we play AA compared to $1500 for $300 when we fold AA preflop. Without looking deeper it appears in the long run, the average for three sessions is better when we fold pre-flop 19/5 compared to 5/1.

So really what you are asking is, am I better than 3.8/1 return on my money for my average session.

No, not yet I'm not, I reckon when I sit at $100 NL my average return isn't $380 per session, its about $210 so I need to play, however if I have read your question correctly I can see how you could win more by doing so.

Please note that my workings aren't based on any real figures, I have just grabbed numbers that appear reasonable, if anyone has more time to calculate odds Vs all in ranges with four opponents 3 of whom should have decent starting hards (not many call all in with 7-2 off, let alone 2 or 3)
please feel free to rework the problem swith real data.