Why three near-identical lineups waste the format
If all three lineups share the same core, same stack, same leverage point, and nearly the same secondary pieces, one incorrect assumption can sink the entire set. Minor swaps create visual variety without meaningful scenario diversity.
Build around distinct hypotheses
The exact theses change by slate. What matters is that each lineup remains independently strong while the set covers meaningfully different outcomes.
Thesis A: the best-projected game environment hits.
Thesis B: a secondary game becomes the slate breaker.
Thesis C: a high-owned assumption fails and a strong alternative captures the leverage.
Do not diversify just to diversify
Three completely unrelated low-EV lineups are not superior to three strong correlated ones. Scenario diversity should preserve enough projection and ceiling to remain viable.
How JARVIS uses 3-Max
Three coherent paths through the slate
JARVIS treats 3-Max as a small portfolio. The ideal output is three strong builds representing distinct slate theses, not one optimizer answer with two cosmetic variations.