This is missing the entire point. Running 5-7 "dead cards" (Missteps/Flusters/Pyros) is a constraint the current metagame.
And this thought process is why Shops will keep winning. If Shops are overperforming their metagame percentage, then the argument of "build for the 70%" doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously then Shops decks are going to populate the top tables and the top8: how are you planning on winning a tournament by not being prepped for them? What does smacking down the other blue decks mean if you can't beat your predator?
A top 8? A X-2 finish at Champs? Like, seriously...this is stupid. What good is beating your predator at the top tables if you never get to the top tables? Even then, Shops is normally ~30% of the field. I am still almost twice as likely to play a Blue deck in that situation. So instead of running 6 anti blue cards and a Shop hate card, the numbers say I run 5 anti-blue cards and 2 anti-Shops cards? Smart. Really ***ing smart... Again, can we please official retire this stupid argument once and for all? It's embarrassing and portrays Vintage players as a bunch of casuals unwilling to articulate reasonable positions. And you wonder why the DCI ignores this crap...
This post doesn't come from a place of logic. Increasing your chances against the best positioned deck in the metagame at the cost of match percentage points against blue is exactly the strategy that rewarded 3 Oath players at Champs with a chance at the title.
The first rounds of a tournament are intensely chaotic and players of all skill levels with decks of all ranges of metagame preparation don't break through to the top tables for a nearly infinite set of reasons. My argument is that prepping for that possibility is more important than worrying about the specifics of your round one and two opponent.