A way of playing where you use a gambit may work better on a better opponent because they are more used to main lines of strategy.
If you try and pull a “poison pawn” it can lead to positional imbalance and give you a tell, but if his technique level is greater than yours, you may not be able to pay for the ‘free pieces’ latter.
I think its better to wait till he makes a mistake, determine how to best take advantage of it and exploit it ruthlessly in the usual result that it will eventually lead to further imbalance elsewhere when he tries to support the weak move.
The good player will be able to recognize when he has made his mistake and where he will address his shortcomings. After that its all technique and basic math.
But thats why 2 player AA games suck, because its all so planned out by home study that the game is no longer fun.
The uncertainty of having 5 players is exciting because you need to have psychological talents as well and be a team player. A real strategist is born when he learns to coordinate the efforts of others and produce a flawed but successful victory. That dynamic is lost hopelessly with perfect coordination at all times from what you wrote on 8.5x11 sheets of paper.