Big Boy

I analyzed over 40 matches to find the strongest class in Grand Arena @Moku_HQ . 🔄 These results can upgrade your whole approach 👇 → The class with the highest MVP impact Every class can shine, but some stand out more often. - Bruiser (7 MVP): appearances with 400 damage, 200 defense and 200 fortitude, offering strong damage, solid durability and more frequent gacha ball respawns. - Flanker (7 MVP): with 200 in every stat except fortitude, creating a nearly perfect balance. - Grinder (6 MVP): with 200 damage, 200 dexterity and 400 fortitude, giving high speed while carrying the gacha ball and faster ball regeneration. - Center (6 MVP): with 200 in every stat except dexterity, which works even better if your Moki already has a strong base stat. → Which class should you choose to win duels The data points clearly to fortitude and damage as the two core stats for winning most encounters, especially because of the speed advantage when grabbing the gacha ball and the shorter regen timers. Still, balance matters. In a 3 vs 3, excelling in one area means nothing if you leave another uncovered. → Final thought Choosing your class with intention is an instant win rate boost. Knowing what each stat does is the secret.

If you're placing 15-30 ads per ad set, why not use a combined ad set (CBO) with, say, 5 ads per set? At least from what I've observed, when I further separate the ads within ad sets, they tend to consume more budget. Conversely, if I combine everything into one set, Meta ends up allocating almost all of its budget to 2-3 ads.

Tried out so many different ad account structures and this is what is ripping the hardest this year: 1st campaign: ABO This is where all testing happens but I also scale here too Video's/images get their own ad sets Each video ad set = one new concept Each image ad set = I dump in 15-30 ads $100-$200/day starting budget per ad set Why test in ABO? I want a spend on everything. Unprofitable spend isn’t wasted spend as it contributes to learnings which = higher win rate ABO also easier visible easier to manage than dealing with CBO with loads of min spends inside If ad sets in ABO are hitting KPI by mid morning, I surf scale them throughout the day, doubling the budget every few hours 2nd campaign: Cost-cap CBO Take all winning ads from ABO and also push them into this cost-cap campaign I launch one new ad set/month Example: July winners August winners etc When an ad in ABO is hitting KPI, dupe it in Look at average CPA on winning ads in your ABO, use this as your starting cost-cap on the ad set Inflate the campaign budget - example starting budget 5k/day. You’re trying to spend as much as possible, but you have a safety net with the cap in place. If demand is low/performance is bad, spend will drop. If it’s good, it’ll spend and scale. If you want more spend through it, increase campaign budget or increase cost caps. 3rd campaign: Graveyard bid-cap Same structure as above, but with bid-cap. One ad set launched per month. Take all fatigued ads and launch them in here. Inflated campaign budget, usually spends around 5-15% of total budget. Simple set up but crushes every time.

@linhtrinh_ I do it the other way around: I test in CBO and scale the results in ABO for greater control. CBO is good for finding winners when you have high volume, new pixels, etc. This way you don't burn through your budget. On the other hand, ABO is perfect for stability.

If your winners don't scale in your scaling campaign - you scale them in the ABO campaign as well. Test new concept + angles in ABO. Take winners and scale inside a single CBO campaign - cost cap. Increase budget in the ABO adset that winning.

CBO will find winners faster than ABO, but it will be more unstable and you'll have to constantly monitor and set limits. ABO will burn through your budget until you find the right winner, but then it will give you greater security by spending a fixed amount and only needing to check occasionally. My framework is now a mix: CBO for concept discovery, and ABO for scaling and robust management.

I DO NOT FULLY TRUST META OR CBO IN GENERAL AND YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER!!!!!! I know this might sound like I'm saying the opposite of what I've said in my last couple of posts, but I just want to be extremely clear about this nuance. Please don't hear my talking about CBO and think I fully trust Meta or CBOs. Both CBOs and Meta suck in soooo many ways... Buuuuuuut, overall, with everything I understand about how they operate, I'd rather lean on them at scale and make adjustments to what they're doing than have to do a fully manual ABO. I'd suggest you consider doing the same. And again, the main thing is that media buying doesn't matter as much as everything else in the ad and business.

Honestly, launching a CBO is the best strategy in my opinion. Let it run for three days. If nothing's working, pause the losing ads and add more ads in new ad sets. Sooner or later, you should get some winners. But you won't burn through ads as much as you would with an ABO, in my opinion.

@bigboy_iv @max_rosewater I’m going through this with two new brands right now. Pre-revenue, build almost complete, no idea how I’ll run ads. I have a ~5m/yr brand and I just know I’m not running it well and not sure what to do with the new ones with no history.

My favorite tweet of the year. My take: I've tested every Meta account structure that exists over the past 12 months. ABO, ABO with 20% budget sharing, CBO, plus every setting layered on top. Enough changed that it warranted retesting everything. Honestly, all the debates on here even made me ask "can Meta be trusted?" Here's what I learned: every single time I've been forced into an ABO testing structure, it's become a major cost center. It happened again this week. A brand i'm working with forcing testing in ABO, and we torched cash in the name of "learning." Forcing spend into low-budget ad sets creates fragmented learnings, zero statistical significance, and you end up bidding against yourself (if you're launching way too many ad sets). And, i'm still yet to understand what anyone learns when an underperforming ad gets $300 more spend than it should have. Unless you're launching every ABO test with the proper daily budget (CAC * 7.14) I won't hate on you. Otherwise, you're wasting and fragmenting your media dollars. I am becoming a firm believer that ABO gives media buyers the illusion of control in an extremely complex environment. It feels like you're steering spend to the right ads. In reality, you'd get the same outcome, or better, by consolidating and giving Meta budget flexibility. And, you may be shooting yourself in the foot if you're not getting enough consolidated data signal in fewer ad sets. If you disagree, go into any account of yours and sort by amount spent at the ad level. You'll see the same thing every time: 20% of the ads get 80% of the spend. That's how Meta works. It will look the exact same at the ad level blended across the account on a long time frame (whether it's CBO or ABO). And if you understand the breakdown effect, it makes perfect sense why this is. Some ads will never get much spend. And people think that's a bad thing, or that it's different from ABO testing. It's not! The exact same outcome will occur in ABO testing. Many ads will spend pennies to dollars. You just didn't break best-practices to achieve that same outcome when consolidating down. And hey, if you want to break out a new CBO for a different business objective (sale moment, new product drop, etc). Go for it! That's how "campaigns" are supposed to work. Otherwise, consolidate and don't assume you can game the algorithm. The probability is not in your favor if you try to. Do what you want. But all that tinkering ends the same way: a consolidated campaign scaling most of the budget anyway. You just took the long road to get there. What do you think? If you disagree, would love to hear it.

I agree, but the solution you mentioned of setting an upper limit ruins the freedom of a CBO. And you'd have to limit it to less than 2% of the total CBO budget. And pausing an ad set or ads is only one issue: 1 - Adding new ad sets without keeping pace with the budget will cause some ads to sit there as filler, spending scraps. They'll never learn anything and will always keep searching for new audience pools. A possible solution is forcing a minimum budget, right? I tried it and it doesn't work. Again, if your pixel is new, it won't work — Meta will give you junk prospects, with a low CPM, just to comply with wanting to spend X minimum budget. 2 - In the end, a CBO is never a fair test. If you add new ad sets, the CBO will almost always lean toward the creative that resonates with the current winner. Otherwise it's hard for it to get budget, unless the first dollars spent show some engagement signal. With my "method," it's very similar, except that by removing the winner from the mix, Meta will look for any other creative — no longer one that resonates with the previously paused winner. Again, all of this is based on a new pixel and limited budgets. If these were big brands, they could afford to burn money on ads that spend scraps, but within a week reach a target CPA or better. - Lastly, here's my experience: right now I only use 1 CBO — test and scale. But personally, it's very unstable for me, and yes, there are ways to stabilize it. But it loses the whole magic of the CBO. Where it's just upload ads and don't control anything, an ABO is better for that. That's why I preferred to do a MIX — with ABO I'll have a life insurance policy, in my opinion: ads that are spending, I watch their frequency, I watch how they're spending, I control them well. With CBO, I have to watch that I'm not wasting spend, look at the past test, see if Meta screwed it up by giving budget to a test that didn't convert, etc. It's more random. Lastly, and I forgot to mention this about my system — the idea isn't to find winners as such. It's to find the winning concept (angle + buyer persona). With this, I can then launch directly into the scaling ABO, and test it with a smaller or larger budget, because I have a higher % chance of getting it right.

The only reason the campaign is becoming unstable in the CBO is because of the decision to pause the creatives instead of just continually refreshing creatives. I don't really pause ads or ad sets often unless there's a reallyy good data-driven reason to do so over a long time frame. Talking 30+ days and multiple cycles of attribution windows. To your point about CBOs "disadvantage," Meta will reallocate that budget and CAC will rise because of deciding to turn off the ads or ad sets, causing performance to "break down." I think turning things off is fundamentally the wrong decision. That's why I use cost controls to help mitigate that. Tighten the cost control, don't turn off the ad set. Also, don't turn off ads at the ad-level unless there's a stock-out or another really compelling reason. Instead, launch more ads to fight over spend and support the blended efficiency of the campaign, and prune out lower spending ads that aren't really spending any dollars. I also think using ABO is fine so long as you're launching like 20 - 50 ads per ad set. The only dog in this fight i've got is to save people from torching ad spend, and if you're scaling nicely in ABO and not seeing too many failed tests run away from you, all the power to you.

Now, what about ABO? Like I mentioned earlier, you'll burn a lot of money testing. You don't know what's working — is it the ad, the landing page, the concept in general? You just don't know. Because of that, you need a bigger loss budget before finding your winner. But for scaling, ABO is actually a solid option, in my opinion. Each creative or ad set has a spending cap before it starts wrecking your CPA. Using CBO to scale is kind of the same deal — you add more ads, raise the budget, etc., and everything gets unstable again. Just not as unstable, because now instability is happening to your winners, not to potential winners or outright losers. So where's the sweet spot, in my opinion? Use CBO for testing — try out creatives, find winners with high creative volume, without burning too much budget. Let Meta do its thing. Found a winner? Now move it over to an ABO to scale it. Once that's stable, pause that ad set in the CBO, add more creatives, and wait 1-3 days for Meta to potentially find another winner. If it doesn't, launch more — but do it with logic: analyze what didn't work, or pause ads that hit something like 2x your target CPA.

First off — if it's an established brand, with an older pixel, mature account, etc., I think pretty much everything works: ABO, CBO, whatever. Obviously with varying degrees of ease. Now, for most people who are spending small budgets, running new brands, or have few sales overall: CBO is the best option early on. You can run a small budget with a lot of volume ads right from the start. Meta will make predictions and pick 1-2 winners, feeding them 80% of the budget. That's it — you don't need to touch anything, you're already profitable... until: You start scaling by increasing the budget, publishing new creatives, pausing creatives, or Meta's algorithm just decides to go haywire one day. Why does this happen? Every time you pause an ad set or ad, whatever it was spending (say $20) will likely get reallocated almost entirely to the winning ad set. Without realizing it, you've just scaled that winner by more than 20%, and the whole campaign becomes unstable again. The same thing happens when you create new ad sets — the budget has to redistribute again, so there's no real stability, no true "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." So, in summary: CBO is great for finding winners without burning too much budget the way ABO would, but it's not stable — especially if your pixel doesn't have much data yet, or if you're making frequent changes.

My idea was 1 testing CBO, add 3 adsets, 4-5 ads each, for example. Give it 2 days to produce a winner. If it produces a winner, I move it to a scaled ABO and pause it in the testing campaign. Base budget is 2x target CPA, that's it — I don't increase it. It's only for finding winners or potential concepts, especially new ones. Winners never stay in the CBO — they go straight to the ABO, because of the higher probability of working.

@bigboy_iv CBO is on a fixed daily budget. I do increase when I see it reaching target CPA in the past days, and reduce when the opposite happens.

$0 → $100k/day - Day 11 My campaigns are healing after a lot of moving and account structure change. I got rid of the ABO campaign, I now have 3 campaigns per product. A testing CBO, because my hit rate is very low, I will let meta decide and move the winners with post ID to CBO bid cap and CBO HV. I didn't launch any new ads yesterday but spent time strategizing next 10 new concepts for next week. I'd usually strategize more but I need to focus on quality and with the size of our time, that's all we can do for now. Things have been up and down, stock is running low and I will receive stock in 2 weeks. I have no reason to scale, I know some would do in and run pre sale. I don't think it's the right thing at the moment. See you tomorrow.

@linhtrinh_ Even if the account is new and the pixel is new. I've seen that CBO is good, but when you add more ads it gets messed up; there's a lot of chaos and instability.

Observation but I could be totally wrong. The heavy DR hitters who test every single angle, headline, funnel, advertorial - they love the ABO. They get to see in real time what angle works, what messaging drives CTR as this is vital. Then you get the brand builders. They have good brand, a unique product and are happy to run a simple product page (or listicle) with CBO and don't overcomplicate things. Both work. It depends on the biz you run and who you're listening to.

@cx_ec0m @andrewxroas Thanks, and do you pause that winning CBO test set? And what about other CBO sets? Do you let them spend infinitely, or do you have something like a target CPA and pauses?

@bigboy_iv @andrewxroas I've a testing CBO campaign and when i've some winning ads i scale them in a separated ABO

Using ABO in 2026 is crazy...

@thedennis PROMPTS

@cx_ec0m @andrewxroas how?

@andrewxroas Testing in CBO, scaling in ABO

Note that CBO for new brands or those with low budgets or new pixels is best for finding winning ads, but worst when scaling the same campaign or adding more ad sets. I think the best option I've seen so far is: 1- Testing CBO, fixed budget, no scaling, I add new creatives and move the winning ads to a scaling CBO. If the winning ad set from that CBO doesn't free up budget, I set a spending cap. 2- Another option was to turn off that winning ad set once it stabilizes in the CBO. This way, I free up budget and add more ad sets until the winning ad set works its magic and generates more winners, and then I repeat the process. However, turning off what's working isn't ideal in my opinion. But it's the only way I've found to test creative volume without affecting what's already working.

@bigboy_iv @RichaIsran34176 I agree with what you've read. The problem with cost caps is when they're used too rigidly close to your target, it doesn't allow spend to go to find new audiences. So increase your caps on those and you're fine.

You can spend millions per month with literally 1 CBO. I know I'm gonna catch heat from the sweaty ABO fans and the ABO gurus everyone loves to glaze but... I'm mostly a CBO maxi now 😱 (Btw, stick around for the reasons CBO doesn't work too) Should you even listen to me? Welp. I've been doing this FB ad stuff for 18+ years (and still am in the weeds today so I don't lose touch). I've studied literally billions of dollars worth of ads. Annnnd I just love this stuff and love talking about it. Also, I used to be a huge ABO maxi. I get it! But things have changed and I adapted! Here's a real example from a brand I started working with in April: In March they were spending 6 figures across 9 separate campaigns. NINE! The full sweaty routine, trying and failing to media-buy their way to a million-dollar spending month. And those 9 campaigns were quietly competing against each other in the same auctions and fragmenting all the data. Last 30 days? Over $1.5M in spend through 1 CBO campaign, running on Incremental Attribution. And their cost per conversion actually dropped 5% while scaling. Fewer campaigns. More spend. Cheaper conversions. Annnnd, most importantly, every minute less wasted on sweaty media-buying baloney can be spent on the things that actually move the needle, and those benefits compound. The best thing a media buyer can do in 2026 and beyond is... Spend less time on media buying and Spend more time on anything else that matters to your (potential) customers and your business: creative, products, offers, copywriting, CRO, landing pages, etc. CBO helps you do that. Let me explain why. With CBO, you let the system do what it wants to do, and then you can study it, empathize with it, criticize it, and use your human context to modify it if/as necessary. Empathize with it because the system is trying to solve a problem you can't fully see. When you understand what it's actually optimizing toward, you stop fighting it and start steering it. Meta has more data about your ads than it reports, meaning it has more and better data than you do. Ever wonder why Meta spends more on stuff with a lower ROAS or higher CPA than others? That's either the breakdown effect or it's optimizing for something you can't see. (Or a combination of both) You can't see if or how any users have seen or interacted with any other ads before they click the link. But Meta can. In the age of advanced AI machine learning post-Andromeda Meta advertising, if you think the only thing that matters is the last ad a user clicked before they got to your site, or that only link clicks matter and no other on-Meta actions matter, then you're simply not living in reality. This is also why I run Incremental Attribution on that CBO. It tells Meta to optimize toward the conversions it actually drove, not every last-touch conversion it can take credit for. Better signal in, better optimization out. CBO plus human inputs via cost caps and/or budget mins and maxes is the way to go. Best of both worlds. This works best the more data you feed Meta, so you need a lower CPA and/or high spend. The more data the system has, the more I generally trust it. Consolidation = more data for Meta to optimize. The worse/less data that you give Meta or the more you fragment your account, the less you should trust it to optimize on your behalf effectively. Now, the honest part. CBO is not magic and it does have real weaknesses: 1. CBO optimizes to cost, not profit. Mix products with different margins in one campaign and it'll happily pour budget into cheap, low-value conversions. Feed it value signals or it'll work against you. (Or otherwise apply your own context via cost caps and budget controls) 2. Budget flows to whatever the system likes, so if you need guaranteed spend on a new product or geo, it'll fight you. (That's what the budget mins/maxes are for!) 3. Low-volume accounts don't give it enough to chew on. If you're not feeding it much, it can't optimize much. 4. It's scary and hard to move from a fragmented setup, especially if you've been using it for years. Consolidating resets learning. There's a real short-term cost while it re-figures things out. It's worth it, but don't panic on day 2. Soooo when is ABO still right? Lower-spend or lower conversion volume accounts, or any time you simply can't get good data into Meta. Or if you're optimizing for something without deeper data being sent at all like reach, brand awareness, or link clicks. ABO is also fine if you can mostly consolidate into as few campaigns and ad sets as possible, buuuut the reported data can still be misleading and cause a media buyer to optimize in the wrong direction. And look, I'm not saying this is the exact RIGHT/BEST way to run EVERY account or business. It's not. CBO is probably the easiest and smartest for most businesses, and it frees up a lot more time and resources to focus on the most important stuff. It helps that this business has basically one main product, so consolidating into a single campaign is clean and easy. No mixed margins, no ten SKUs fighting for budget. If your catalog is more complicated, your setup probably needs to be too. But if it can work for a business spending this kind of money, it might work for yours too. Just because you CAN over-optimize and manually control every little thing, doesn't mean you should. This CBO plan will never work for YOU if you: 1. Have zero trust in Meta (I'm not saying you should 100% trust Meta all the time. Please don't! Buuut you need to be able to trust it at least a little bit) 2. Don't care or understand that overlapping campaigns and ad sets impact each other 3. Think you have more/better data than Meta's system (you don't! Seriously, you don't! Click data only tells one part of a complicated journey) 4. Think you're smarter than Meta's system (you're not!) 5. Give Meta bad/wrong signals/data to optimize from 6. Refuse to believe that there are other bigger things to focus on more than media buying And here's the thing sooo many media buyers (and gurus!) don't want to hear or admit: they think their media buying is the reason it's all working. It usually isn't. It's the excellent creative, the strong offer, the dialed-in landing page, the actual product people want. The media buyer is often just along for the ride on top of a great machine, taking credit for the engine someone else built. The best media buyers I know are the first to admit this. Oh, and this post isn't a pitch. I'm not gating any of this behind a signup. I just want you to squeeze the best performance you possibly can out of your ads. But if you take one thing from all of this, take this: the biggest swings in your ad performance usually aren't coming from media buying at all. They're coming from your website and the world around it. A landing page change. A new product launch. A price update. A broken checkout. A competitor's promo. A holiday. A news cycle. That stuff moves your numbers way more than which campaign structure you picked. It's the entire reason I'm building URLLove.It Because most people are staring at their ad account hunting for an answer that actually changed on their website three days ago, and they never even noticed. TL;DR: Consolidate or die. Feed it good signal (Incremental Attribution helps). Steer with cost caps and budget mins/maxes instead of babysitting. Then go spend your time on creative and offers, and alllll the stuff that actually moves the business. If you run ABO and you're winning, or you think I've got any of this backwards, come at me. Reply, quote it, tear it apart. I'll take any and all of it. One fair ask though: if you've never actually run a full consolidation, all the way down to 1 or 2 campaigns, I'll still read your take, but know that I'm going to weight it differently than someone who's actually tried it and watched what happened. That's not me dodging the argument. It's the opposite. Go run it. Give Meta the data, give it a real shot, and then come tell me everything I got wrong. That's the feedback I want most, because that's the feedback that can actually change my mind. Opinions from the sideline are welcome. Opinions from the field are gold. And if any of you want to actually hash this out live, a space, a call, a recorded chat, whatever, I'm in. I'd love to sit across from someone who disagrees and see what I'm missing.

I appreciate your video on ABO and CBO, and I agree with many points. However, I had a question about the "intermediate" stage. CBO testing (3 ad sets of 3-5 ads each), adding ad sets and ads. The winning set is then transferred to an ABO and scaled so it isn't negatively impacted. Once the CPA is stable, we can do two things: 1- Pause that winning set, forcing the CBO to find a new winner. 2- Leave it running and create another test campaign in CBO. The advantage of this is that if you have a limited budget, Meta, with its algorithm, will allocate to a maximum of 1 or 2 ads out of 15 or 20. This achieves the goal of finding the winner without wasting budget. What do you think of this approach?

ad level, why does this work like this now

Considering that Facebook, the same company that burned through $125 million on AI, laying off a large portion of its workforce, has created a system where "meta AI" allows anyone to hack any Instagram account simply by asking. Not to mention the multiple outages it experienced this year and its failure to create anything truly solid with AI so far. I don't know, man. It's not that it didn't work for me, but I doubt I can trust its algorithm 100%.

@bigboy_iv @rokhladnik I think I trust fb more than you do?

A lot of brands think cost caps are a media buying strategy. They’re not. They’re a protection mechanism. Useful in the right context, but dangerous when they become the entire account strategy. If your whole Meta account is “consolidated CBO + cost caps,” you probably have less control than you think.

@wifigery Are you forcing a minimum budget on new ad sets? I've noticed that doing so results in a low CPM, but with terrible traffic. It feels like Meta is only spending out of necessity, giving me the worst results.

Shifted from 1-CBO to a similar structure of this tweet and in less than a week we've gone from 12k$/day adspend to 38k$/day Also implemented real UGC and that unlocked a lot but we've rescued some dead winning ads and have way more control when scaling dont trust the algo

Isn't it dangerous to have only one CBO for scaled testing and have a low cost cap? I mean, you're 100% dependent on the ad placement respecting the target CPA. And the audience usually needs to be more engaged to convert. Finally, if you implement new creative concepts where your pixel has no idea who it resonates with, it probably won't spend on anyone or will spend poorly? I don't know what you think.

@rokhladnik But it also outperforms 90% of media buyers tbh Beating cost caps take care and attention which most agencies and media buyers don’t really provide It’s basically the lazy man’s chad marketing but it’s still pretty effective

@eduardbeschea Would you use CBO with a forced minimum budget? Supporting overall campaign learning. Or would you still prefer to have two separate campaigns: abo + cbo?

I test new ads in separate ad sets in an ABO campaign. I take the winning ads and scale them in a CBO. CBOs do a pretty good job at directing prospecting ads to cold audiences, and retargeting ads to warm audiences. Great ecosystem, if you feed it just your winning ads.

I've seen some people recommend a high-volume CBO campaign. After gathering data, they should then move to a cost-cap testing and scaling plan. From what I've read, this isn't recommended because it will generate sales, but only for ads that already resonate with their target audience. It won't work for new concepts, and they probably won't allocate budget for it. Or, if you force it, you might show it to the wrong people. What do you think?

@RichaIsran34176 @bigboy_iv Yes