vs weaker players it's better to have JJ, because bad players like to overplay their lower pps. Good example are CC freerolls where people calls every PPs. They don't look at positions, number of bbs, your perceived range etc. They just call. That's why it's better to have JJ and dominate so much lower pps than make a flip with your AK vs some random low pps, which shouldn't be called.
vs regular players I believe AK is better. Mostly because of blockers you can try to represent stronger range on many structures.
Of course AK vs weak players is also a good combination, because you dominate so many weaker Ax of your opponent, but still it's harder to play it postflop when you miss a board, because you have a lower fold equity.
I would think that my winning percentage is about the same for both. Early in tournament play or early in the hand, they both usually yield small wins...but when they lose, they tend to lose a lot of chips...after the flop, I would prefer to have AK.
Depends on the situation on the board. If we are talking about preflop, then for sure i prefer AK, it,s seems as a better hand. If you have no position, you can not be sure in your JJ, because someone can have better hand.
I would prefer being dealt AK over a pair of jacks. With AK I feel I have a two cards to draw to vs hitting a 3rd jack. Also 3 cards (AKQ)pairing up beats JJ which gives one better odds.
Just my opinion )))