Why are we even talking about Lookout/Lookout vs. Ambassador/Ambassador? Even if Lookout/Lookout is the better opening (which I doubt), it doesn't give an indication that Lookout is better overall. It only suggests that Lookout is effective against Ambassador when both are on the board.
Look at Bishop vs. Gardens. Bishop practically hard counters a Gardens rush, but that has little to do with why it might be better than Gardens. Gosh.
Back to Lookout/Lookout vs. Amb/Amb, how is Lookout supposed to thin the deck with the junk being passed by Ambassador? The Ambassador player can typically get rid of 3 cards before the second reshuffle. The Lookout player can barely get a net junk card decrease of 1 before the second reshuffle.
Of course, the better opening depends on the board. If there is a great engine available, the Ambassador player has an additional attack in the form of Ambassador, and the Lookout player probably can't keep up without an Ambassador of their own. On the other hand, if the dominant strategy is Big Money+X or something, the Lookout opening probably has better chances.
Did we really have to necro this thread?