There are slow and fast variations of KJF - fast and slow, but neither is particularly effective if the Axis player responds appropriately.
The slow variation goes something like this - push Japan off the Asian coast with Russia, while US kills the Pacific fleet. UK supports Russia in Europe.
The fast variation goes something like this - Sinkiang IC / India IC, then UK ground from India plus UK air, Russian ground, and US fleet all push in on Japan.
In both variations, what the Allies are planning is pretty clear; the Allies have to move around to set up their KJF plan. That movement always weakens the Russian-German front, and is sometimes not too effective, as Japan has a lot of flexibility that it can use to punish the Allies.
I agree that KJF is not the superior strategy - I just find it more fun and necessary for the game to keep my interest for it to have playable alternatives to the traditional KGF strategy.
Regarding the dice being a friend of the axis I am not sure I totally agree here. Risky early round battles goes for both players.
USSR has the WR UKR/Belo/Norway
Germany typically has The Egypt attack, SZ2 and even the med cruiser can give problems.
Uk has the Egypt counter or FIC/Borneo.
Japan can definately struggle with both taking out a bury stack, taking China, sz52 and some UK pacific leftovers.
I think the best way to play the game is to keep the strategic options open, in order to exploit early game weaknesses.
For instance a US pacific campaign is a better option if Japan loses a capital ship R1. If Germany fails in sz2 the KGF scenario is of to a good start so allies might as well expliot it etc.
Some of the games Hobbes refers to, it seems like his opponent made up his mind about the strategy before the game, and sticked to it regardless of the outcome fo the battles, which I think was a huge mistake (and also you can't expect USSR both to aid allies in a KJF and take out the German med fleet).