Time Allocation for Study

For a player rated in the high 1600s looking to get to 1800, what is the proper allocation of study time between opening, strategy, tactics, endgame, and playing training games?

In reviewing my games, I'm starting to believe that tactics deserve the lion's share for me but curious what others think in a vacuum (not knowing the specific player trying to go from high 1600's to 1800).

For me,

i select a few openings and stick to it, dont study openings much after that.

Strategy is important. I spend considerable time looking at GM games and lectures to identify ideas and plans in different positions.

I used to spend a lot of time on tactics before, but now i practice tactics about 2/3 times a week. It has changed my style of playing chess from before as well.

Engame. I believe it is the most valuable asset. If you are better than your opponent at endgame, then you can just exchange all pieces and expect to win drawn positions. It makes you feel much more confident about your chances of winning. It also reduces the odds of losing considerably. 

Let me know what you think

This seems to be really good advice generally. The reason why I think I in particular need to spend a lot more time on tactics is twofold. One when I see major errors in my games it's almost always a tactical error. Two when I compare my tactics score in puzzles two people in or around my rating I am almost always lower.

Alright, fair enough.......

Just a general question,

what do you know about chess strategy?

And also,

could you take this test,

http://www.chesspersonality.com/test

for me to understand what is your style of play?

my chess personality is anaconda - like nimzowitsch