that chart that showed when the different games went positive was helpful. My other question is at what level do i change my strategy? For example, if in DB or DDB i have an A-10 suited at what level would i hold A-10 instead of just A? OR what happened to me one time in DB 9/5 i had 7-7 and held this over J-10 SUITED and other three came up for the royal($1 progressive meter was 7300 at fitz)
are there any strategy cards/tables for these situations as progressive rises?
thanks
correction it was DB 9/6
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dynamite9758" <dynamite67@...> wrote:
that chart that showed when the different games went positive was helpful. My other question is at what level do i change my strategy? For example, if in DB or DDB i have an A-10 suited at what level would i hold A-10 instead of just A? OR what happened to me one time in DB 9/5 i had 7-7 and held this over J-10 SUITED and other three came up for the royal($1 progressive meter was 7300 at fitz)
are there any strategy cards/tables for these situations as progressive rises?
thanks
Bob Dancer has 2 articles in the archives of Las Vegas Advicsor on the calculation of breakpoints.
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2011/0524.cfm
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2011/0531.cfm
There is also the issue of whether to simply play a beakeven strategy throughout or to adjust your play as the meter progresses. Some time ago Frank Kneeland and others (Tom Robertson, and nightoftheiguana2000 ?)discussed this on this forum. I use breakpoints when there are a fair number of players also chasing the meter; otherwise I play a breakeven strategy. Apparently you make more money if you just play the breakeven strategy. My decision would be influenced by benefits from coin in long term, the denomination (bankroll considerations) and whether there is another opportunity available if the jackpot is hit.
LA Bum
___________________________________________________________________
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dynamite9758" <dynamite67@...> wrote:
that chart that showed when the different games went positive was helpful. My other question is at what level do i change my strategy? For example, if in DB or DDB i have an A-10 suited at what level would i hold A-10 instead of just A? OR what happened to me one time in DB 9/5 i had 7-7 and held this over J-10 SUITED and other three came up for the royal($1 progressive meter was 7300 at fitz)
are there any strategy cards/tables for these situations as progressive rises?
thanks
http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/FAQ_S.htm#MCR
"The "Min-Cost-Royal" strategy, which minimizes the average loss between royals, is a static strategy. The strategy maximizes EV for the royal payoff that gives a breakeven game. It wins the most money per royal jackpot. In contrast, the Max-EV strategy wins most quickly rather than extracting the most dollars from the jackpot."
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "labum63" <labum63@...> wrote:
Bob Dancer has 2 articles in the archives of Las Vegas Advicsor on the calculation of breakpoints.
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2011/0524.cfm
http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2011/0531.cfm
There is also the issue of whether to simply play a beakeven strategy throughout or to adjust your play as the meter progresses. Some time ago Frank Kneeland and others (Tom Robertson, and nightoftheiguana2000 ?)discussed this on this forum. I use breakpoints when there are a fair number of players also chasing the meter; otherwise I play a breakeven strategy. Apparently you make more money if you just play the breakeven strategy. My decision would be influenced by benefits from coin in long term, the denomination (bankroll considerations) and whether there is another opportunity available if the jackpot is hit.
LA Bum
___________________________________________________________________
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dynamite9758" <dynamite67@> wrote:
>
> that chart that showed when the different games went positive was helpful. My other question is at what level do i change my strategy? For example, if in DB or DDB i have an A-10 suited at what level would i hold A-10 instead of just A? OR what happened to me one time in DB 9/5 i had 7-7 and held this over J-10 SUITED and other three came up for the royal($1 progressive meter was 7300 at fitz)
>
> are there any strategy cards/tables for these situations as progressive rises?
>
> thanks
>
I have never completely understood the entire Steve Jacob's discussion. Of course I understand that the Max strategey will hit the royal more quickly.
But which strategy gives you the highest return per hour? I've never seen this explained over the years.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/FAQ_S.htm#MCR
"The "Min-Cost-Royal" strategy, which minimizes the average loss between royals, is a static strategy. The strategy maximizes EV for the royal payoff that gives a breakeven game. It wins the most money per royal jackpot. In contrast, the Max-EV strategy wins most quickly rather than extracting the most dollars from the jackpot."
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "labum63" <labum63@> wrote:
>
>
> Bob Dancer has 2 articles in the archives of Las Vegas Advicsor on the calculation of breakpoints.
>
> http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2011/0524.cfm
>
> http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2011/0531.cfm
>
> There is also the issue of whether to simply play a beakeven strategy throughout or to adjust your play as the meter progresses. Some time ago Frank Kneeland and others (Tom Robertson, and nightoftheiguana2000 ?)discussed this on this forum. I use breakpoints when there are a fair number of players also chasing the meter; otherwise I play a breakeven strategy. Apparently you make more money if you just play the breakeven strategy. My decision would be influenced by benefits from coin in long term, the denomination (bankroll considerations) and whether there is another opportunity available if the jackpot is hit.
>
> LA Bum
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dynamite9758" <dynamite67@> wrote:
> >
> > that chart that showed when the different games went positive was helpful. My other question is at what level do i change my strategy? For example, if in DB or DDB i have an A-10 suited at what level would i hold A-10 instead of just A? OR what happened to me one time in DB 9/5 i had 7-7 and held this over J-10 SUITED and other three came up for the royal($1 progressive meter was 7300 at fitz)
> >
> > are there any strategy cards/tables for these situations as progressive rises?
> >
> > thanks
> >
>
The only reason I can think of that would cause max-EV to not maximize
return per hour is if it reduces hands per hour. Regarding
progressives, increasing the number of hands played, which can be done
both by not drawing to the progressive and by using a simpler strategy
which will quicken play, and reducing fluctuation make max-EV not
optimal.
labum63 wrote:
I have never completely understood the entire Steve Jacob's discussion. Of course I understand that the Max strategey will hit the royal more quickly.
But which strategy gives you the highest return per hour? I've never seen this explained over the years.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/FAQ_S.htm#MCR
"The "Min-Cost-Royal" strategy, which minimizes the average loss between royals, is a static strategy. The strategy maximizes EV for the royal payoff that gives a breakeven game. It wins the most money per royal jackpot. In contrast, the Max-EV strategy wins most quickly rather than extracting the most dollars from the jackpot."
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "labum63" <labum63@> wrote:
>
>
> Bob Dancer has 2 articles in the archives of Las Vegas Advicsor on the calculation of breakpoints.
>
> http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2011/0524.cfm
>
> http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2011/0531.cfm
>
> There is also the issue of whether to simply play a beakeven strategy throughout or to adjust your play as the meter progresses. Some time ago Frank Kneeland and others (Tom Robertson, and nightoftheiguana2000 ?)discussed this on this forum. I use breakpoints when there are a fair number of players also chasing the meter; otherwise I play a breakeven strategy. Apparently you make more money if you just play the breakeven strategy. My decision would be influenced by benefits from coin in long term, the denomination (bankroll considerations) and whether there is another opportunity available if the jackpot is hit.
>
> LA Bum
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dynamite9758" <dynamite67@> wrote:
> >
> > that chart that showed when the different games went positive was helpful. My other question is at what level do i change my strategy? For example, if in DB or DDB i have an A-10 suited at what level would i hold A-10 instead of just A? OR what happened to me one time in DB 9/5 i had 7-7 and held this over J-10 SUITED and other three came up for the royal($1 progressive meter was 7300 at fitz)
> >
> > are there any strategy cards/tables for these situations as progressive rises?
> >
> > thanks
> >
>
The distinctions between Max-ER/EV and min-cost-royal progressive strategies aren't nearly as esoteric as the discussion sometimes suggests.
In answer to your last question, MAX-ER yields the highest return per hour. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a superior progressive strategy.
As an analogy, you have a choice between taking on one of two jobs this week: One pays $40/hr the other pays $50/hr. If it turns out the $40/hr opportunity promises a solid 40 hours of work, but the $50 only yields $25/hr (with no other opportunities on the table) and your goal is to maximize income, then clearly the $40/hr job is more advantageous.
Min-cost strategy is advantageous in one of two scenarios:
The first involves a case where you (at least temporarily) largely have a progressive opportunity all to yourself -- say, because no one else is playing it aggressively, or perhaps because you're part of a team that has a strong presence on the bank.
In this case, the probability is low that during your play someone else will hit the jackpot. As such, there's no need to rush to the jackpot and the math of the play yields the result that your expected loss incurred between now and your hit is minimized if you play a strategy that equates to a paytable with a RF value that takes the game ER to 100% with optimal strategy at that meter. (For example, for a 9/6 JB progressive, this would be a RF payout of something around 4800 credits)
Minimizing your expected loss translates to maximizing your expected profit, and in this sense is a superior strategy over max-ER -- you'll earn less per hour of play, but it's because you're playing less aggressively for the royal and so you look to play longer between each royal. But, the longer play time is such that while the hourly earn is lower, the total earn per royal hit is higher.
The truth is, if you always had another juicy progressive to chase immediately after hitting the current one, and there was no down time between good opportunities, then max-ER would again come out on top of min-cost. Min-cost only prevails if you presume you don't have a strong profitable play in between progressive chases and undesired time on your hands during the wait.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "labum63" <labum63@...> wrote:
I have never completely understood the entire Steve Jacob's discussion. Of course I understand that the Max strategey will hit the royal more quickly.
But which strategy gives you the highest return per hour? I've never
seen this explained over the years.
------
There's a second scenario under which min-cost-royal strategy is advantageous: Because it's less aggressive, it poses less bankroll risk.
If you're talking a run-of-the-mill progressive and standard denoms and only a modest deviation from optimal paytables, then the difference isn't enough to take note of.
But if you're tackling a very juicy progressive that challenges your bankroll -- say a $5 progressive with 4% positive meter, when normally you're a $2 player, or say a game with something like 6/5 Jacks as the base paytable, then a player might find that a min-cost-royal strategy might give them a little more bankroll breathing room without sacrificing much in the way of ER.
But I'm really on the fence about the magnitude of the potential benefit here ... the differences are pretty thin -- I think at the far extreme, you might shave up to 4% off the risk of busting on the play for a given stake (say, picking numbers out of the air, taking you from 15% ROR to 11% ... in most cases the difference is much more modest). I'm not sure, from a practical perspective, how much more "playable" a progressive is via adopting min-cost vs max-ER.
------
I think the most attractive argument for adoption of min-cost-royal strategy is, as has been noted, that it is a "static" strategy. There's no need to concern oneself about strategy breakpoints.
You can take satisfaction in that it is a bankroll-conservative strategy, that in most cases doesn't deviate materially from max-ER. I personally would recommend it for all recreational players ... suggesting they're likely to come out ahead by dispensing with the distraction of strategy shifts as the meter progresses (which, one might reasonably presume, are more prone to strategy errs that cost more than any overall advantage gained from the shifts themselves).
Frankly, I'd guess all but the most hard-core pros might benefit as well. (We know Dancer would never be content with a static progressive strategy ... 
- H.
Harry wrote:
Min-cost strategy is advantageous in one of two scenarios:
The first involves a case where you (at least temporarily) largely have a progressive opportunity all to yourself -- say, because no one else is playing it aggressively, or perhaps because you're part of a team that has a strong presence on the bank.
In this case, the probability is low that during your play someone else will hit the jackpot. As such, there's no need to rush to the jackpot and the math of the play yields the result that your expected loss incurred between now and your hit is minimized if you play a strategy that equates to a paytable with a RF value that takes the game ER to 100% with optimal strategy at that meter. (For example, for a 9/6 JB progressive, this would be a RF payout of something around 4800 credits)
The strategy which maximizes value per jackpot, assuming there's no
competition, also takes meter progression into account. If a
progressive has a 1% meter, the strategy which maximizes value per
jackpot assumes the meter is frozen at a point at which it pays back
99%. But then, that's not "min-cost." It costs less per hand than
min-cost, but more per jackpot.
I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "labum63" <labum63@> wrote:
>
> I have never completely understood the entire Steve Jacob's discussion. Of course I understand that the Max strategey will hit the royal more quickly.
>
> But which strategy gives you the highest return per hour? I've never
> seen this explained over the years.The distinctions between Max-ER/EV and min-cost-royal progressive strategies aren't nearly as esoteric as the discussion sometimes suggests.
In answer to your last question, MAX-ER yields the highest return per hour. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a superior progressive strategy.
As an analogy, you have a choice between taking on one of two jobs this week: One pays $40/hr the other pays $50/hr. If it turns out the $40/hr opportunity promises a solid 40 hours of work, but the $50 only yields $25/hr (with no other opportunities on the table) and your goal is to maximize income, then clearly the $40/hr job is more advantageous.
Min-cost strategy is advantageous in one of two scenarios:
The first involves a case where you (at least temporarily) largely have a progressive opportunity all to yourself -- say, because no one else is playing it aggressively, or perhaps because you're part of a team that has a strong presence on the bank.
In this case, the probability is low that during your play someone else will hit the jackpot. As such, there's no need to rush to the jackpot and the math of the play yields the result that your expected loss incurred between now and your hit is minimized if you play a strategy that equates to a paytable with a RF value that takes the game ER to 100% with optimal strategy at that meter. (For example, for a 9/6 JB progressive, this would be a RF payout of something around 4800 credits)
Minimizing your expected loss translates to maximizing your expected profit, and in this sense is a superior strategy over max-ER -- you'll earn less per hour of play, but it's because you're playing less aggressively for the royal and so you look to play longer between each royal. But, the longer play time is such that while the hourly earn is lower, the total earn per royal hit is higher.
The truth is, if you always had another juicy progressive to chase immediately after hitting the current one, and there was no down time between good opportunities, then max-ER would again come out on top of min-cost. Min-cost only prevails if you presume you don't have a strong profitable play in between progressive chases and undesired time on your hands during the wait.
------
There's a second scenario under which min-cost-royal strategy is advantageous: Because it's less aggressive, it poses less bankroll risk.
If you're talking a run-of-the-mill progressive and standard denoms and only a modest deviation from optimal paytables, then the difference isn't enough to take note of.
But if you're tackling a very juicy progressive that challenges your bankroll -- say a $5 progressive with 4% positive meter, when normally you're a $2 player, or say a game with something like 6/5 Jacks as the base paytable, then a player might find that a min-cost-royal strategy might give them a little more bankroll breathing room without sacrificing much in the way of ER.
But I'm really on the fence about the magnitude of the potential benefit here ... the differences are pretty thin -- I think at the far extreme, you might shave up to 4% off the risk of busting on the play for a given stake (say, picking numbers out of the air, taking you from 15% ROR to 11% ... in most cases the difference is much more modest). I'm not sure, from a practical perspective, how much more "playable" a progressive is via adopting min-cost vs max-ER.
------
I think the most attractive argument for adoption of min-cost-royal strategy is, as has been noted, that it is a "static" strategy. There's no need to concern oneself about strategy breakpoints.
You can take satisfaction in that it is a bankroll-conservative strategy, that in most cases doesn't deviate materially from max-ER. I personally would recommend it for all recreational players ... suggesting they're likely to come out ahead by dispensing with the distraction of strategy shifts as the meter progresses (which, one might reasonably presume, are more prone to strategy errs that cost more than any overall advantage gained from the shifts themselves).
Frankly, I'd guess all but the most hard-core pros might benefit as well. (We know Dancer would never be content with a static progressive strategy ...
- H.
Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
per hand.
vpplayer88 wrote:
I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
I think I see the logic of it now, thanks.
One thing that is still bugging me is that meter rise isn't considered. It seems intuitive that of you have two separate machines with the same current jackpot but different meter rise, then you should play to hit royals less often on the one with the higher meter rise.
Drawing to a royal is like an option to end the game. For the machine with the higher meter rise, the value of continuing the game is greater, so the option to end the game should be taken less often. Why is that wrong?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
per hand.vpplayer88 wrote:
>I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
>
>I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
It's exactly right. The strategy which maximizes the value of the
play, assuming there's no competition, assumes that the royal is at
break even, including meter rise. For a 2% meter, play assuming the
machine is fixed at a 98% payout.
vpplayer88 wrote:
I think I see the logic of it now, thanks.
One thing that is still bugging me is that meter rise isn't considered. It seems intuitive that of you have two separate machines with the same current jackpot but different meter rise, then you should play to hit royals less often on the one with the higher meter rise.
Drawing to a royal is like an option to end the game. For the machine with the higher meter rise, the value of continuing the game is greater, so the option to end the game should be taken less often. Why is that wrong?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
per hand.vpplayer88 wrote:
>I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
>
>I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
I hope I won't be excessive in adding on to Tom's sensible reply ...
Generally speaking, the more aggressively you play for a RF hit, the greater your expected loss per hand between royals (at the extreme, you're tossing paying pairs, e.g.) But the fact that you shorten the royal cycle at the same time serves to soften that cost.
The $64 question is at what point do you optimize the tradeoff between these two effects? I take it on faith that (ignoring meter advance) a strategy based on a meter that yields a 100% ER minimizes loss between royals.
I imagine it takes a bit of calculus to demonstrate this (I also expect an inductive proof ... one in which you assume an opposite assumption and then demonstrate that it yields a contradiction with known fact, would also crack the problem). The point is, unlike much in vp, a little applied algebra isn't going to do the job.
In these discussions, I try hard to not miss the "forest for the trees". It's easy to get lost in the myriad minor considerations. For that reason, I personally would prefer to steer clear of Tom's refinement (setting strategy at 100% - prog adv rate ... which is spot on in maximizing expected profit). Please bear in mind that in most cases, we're typically talking of a distinction that tallies to less than a penny or two an hour.)
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
per hand.vpplayer88 wrote:
>I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
>
>I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
Harry wrote:
I hope I won't be excessive in adding on to Tom's sensible reply ...
Generally speaking, the more aggressively you play for a RF hit, the greater your expected loss per hand between royals (at the extreme, you're tossing paying pairs, e.g.) But the fact that you shorten the royal cycle at the same time serves to soften that cost.
There were machines in Lake Tahoe that had more than a 10% hold. The
player who introduced me to the concept of drawing less aggressively
to the royal for the sake of extending the play wanted to, for the
sake of being conservative, not draw to the royal on a type of hand
that normally adds great fluctuation to a play, but in this case
reduced the cycle by more than it increased the cost per hand, thus,
overall, reducing the cost to hit the jackpot. I had to point out to
him that the conservative approach, overall, besides the more
profitable one, was to be more aggressive on that type of hand.
The $64 question is at what point do you optimize the tradeoff between these two effects? I take it on faith that (ignoring meter advance) a strategy based on a meter that yields a 100% ER minimizes loss between royals.
I imagine it takes a bit of calculus to demonstrate this (I also expect an inductive proof ... one in which you assume an opposite assumption and then demonstrate that it yields a contradiction with known fact, would also crack the problem). The point is, unlike much in vp, a little applied algebra isn't going to do the job.
I never necessarily formally proved it. I just made a list of how
much it cost to hit the jackpot with various strategies and saw that
it converged to its lowest point at the point at which it broke even.
In these discussions, I try hard to not miss the "forest for the trees". It's easy to get lost in the myriad minor considerations. For that reason, I personally would prefer to steer clear of Tom's refinement (setting strategy at 100% - prog adv rate ... which is spot on in maximizing expected profit). Please bear in mind that in most cases, we're typically talking of a distinction that tallies to less than a penny or two an hour.)
It can be negligible and overestimated, although when Harrah's Marina
in Atlantic City had 3% meters on several banks of $1 6/5 Jacks or
Better machines and a team often locked them up and then played as if
they had infinite competition, I estimated the cost to them from doing
that per year to be 5 figures.
There are some important hands: like breaking a pat straight flush to go for the royal, or the more common tossing a pair to draw two to the royal, especially in games with bonus or progressive quads. These are also situations where the Kelly system comes into play.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
I'm not sure, from a practical perspective, how much more "playable" a progressive is via adopting min-cost vs max-ER.
I used to play the quarter 9/6 Jacks progressives at the Cal-Neva. The bartops in the Virginian and the Keno Lounge had 1.5% meters. The bartops in the Skywalk had a 2% meter. I used the strategy based on a 9200 coin royal because thats when all the pros hit the bank. I didn't concern myself with breakpoints past 9200 coins. The key breakpoints are the three-card royals over high pairs. Breakpoints past that don't do a whole lot to lower the royal odds. And I'm a big fan of the KISS principle. The math I used looked like this:
9200 coin royal = 102.598%
The royal represented 4.89% of the payback.
So I'm taking a 3.052% drop.
Cost: $1243 (1.25 X 32589 X 3.052%)
Average royal = $2911 (1.25 X 32589 X 1.5% + $2300)
Average Profit = $1668 ($2911 minus $1243)
My cruising speed is 1000 GPH. If I try to push it up to 1100 GPH I start making mistakes.
Hourly rate = $51 ($1668/32.589)
But what would the math look like if I were using min-cost? If you pull up 9/6 Jacks on the software, then punch in a 4880 coin royal and analyze it will come up exactly 100%
4880 coin royal = 100%
The royal represents 2.72% of payback.
So I'm taking a 2.72% drop
Cost = $1222 (1.25 X 35939 X 2.72%)
Average royal = $2974 (1.25 X 35939 X 1.5% + $2300)
Average Profit = $1752 ($2974 minus $1222)
Hourly rate = $48.75 ($1752/35.939)
And what if I took the meter into account and played a 98.5% strategy?
1570 coin royal = 98.5%
The royal represents .63% of the payback
So I'm taking a 2.13% drop
Cost = $1333 (1.25 X 50,085 X 2.13%)
Average royal = $3239 (1.25 X 50085 X 2.13% = $2300)
Average profit = $1906 ($3239 minus $1333)
Hourly rate = $38 ($1906/50.085)
The 1570 coin strategy has the lowest hourly rate but makes the most money.