This. 100% psychology prob and the answer will likely be different for everyone (due to varying pain thresholds). I don't even know what my answer is as some of it will depend upon how I feel at the moment (which I know is irrational, but we aren't robots so...).

This is ONLY true if we have seen the rest of the table routinely call with Ax and Kx the whole night. If not, then all the other Aces and Kings could be gone.

Yes. The idea of the Kelley criterion is that the risk of ruin is small enough that you will statistically double your roll more often than you bust, which is a counterintuitive result. The problem is that a Kelley BR for a break even player is 50 BIs, which means if you play 5/10 you need 50k

A perfect Kelly Bettor has no risk of ruin. The Kelly Criterion assumes the set of bet sizes we can choose from is continuous. You're always betting a fraction of your bankroll, never all of it. In practice the set of bet sizes we can choose from is discrete, so we can only approximate Kelly. This is where risk of ruin come from.

Wizard of Odds explains Kelly and isn't too technical. The site is great for many other gambling questions, also:

https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/kelly-criterion/

The Kelly Criterion would tell a player with no edge not to bet. I've no idea where you got these numbers.

Not necessarily true. If we constantly adjust our bet size based on our bankroll we will eventually always win because our risk of ruin approaches zero and at some point we will theoretically always be in the black. In this sense Kelley can be seen as a reverse martingale. It's a surprising and counterintuitive result. A Kelley with an infinite br is a martingale

I’m confused about what you’re saying. What would Kelly say to bet playing a breakeven game?

Kelly maximizes the rate of bankroll growth. It doesn’t make sense to me that Kelly could recommend any bet size for betting strategies wtih 0 expected bankroll growth. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say Kelly “doesn’t care” whether you bet at 0 EV?

I can at least say that the Kelly bet size approaches zero as the edge approaches zero from the right.

Not talking about Kelly anymore, repeatedly betting any fraction of a finite bankroll at no edge leads to expected decline in the median bankroll. As the number of bets approaches infinity, the expected median bankroll approaches 0. Under the assumption that money has decreasing marginal utility, placing any sized net with neutral EV has negative utility.

They could be but it's less likely than random. How much less likely of course depends but as long as they are somewhat more likely to vpip w an ace th ere is an effect on the avg remaining composition of the deck.

If we're really going to look at this, don't we also have to consider whether the fact it's the last hand would make someone more or less likely to play a hand like A6o?

Kind of but this'd prob include some non ace hands that normally get vpipd too, right?

As long as there's a positive correlation between having an ace and putting money in ppl not putting money in increases the likelihood the deck is rich in aces.