Fibonacci Betting System
Poll
 | 1 vote (14.28%) | ||
| | 2 votes (28.57%) | ||
| | 1 vote (14.28%) | ||
| | 1 vote (14.28%) | ||
| | 2 votes (28.57%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 2 votes (28.57%) | ||
| No votes (0%) |
7 members have voted
May 13th, 2020 at 8:45:44 PM
permalink
I love Fibonacci numbers as well as Pascal's triangle. It is amazing how many patterns you see. This isn't just an esoteric math exercise, but applications can be found in nature as well.
However, this post is not directly about that. In my continued look at popular betting systems (ugh!), my next examination will be on the Fibonacci. The gist of it is similar to the Labouchere, that the player needs to win only 1/3 of even money bets to have a winning session. Oh, and not run out of money trying as well.
Here is my understanding of how the Fibonacci works:
Is this right? What if the player is not satisfied to win just one unit? Does he tend to keep repeating this process?
This will all eventually end up in both a new page and video on the Fibonacci Betting System, so I welcome input.
The question for the poll is what do you think of the Fibonacci?
However, this post is not directly about that. In my continued look at popular betting systems (ugh!), my next examination will be on the Fibonacci. The gist of it is similar to the Labouchere, that the player needs to win only 1/3 of even money bets to have a winning session. Oh, and not run out of money trying as well.
Here is my understanding of how the Fibonacci works:
- Write your winning goal on a piece of paper.
- Bet that amount on any even money bet.
- If the result from step 2 is a win, walk away.
- If the result from step 2 is a loss, then write the amount you just bet to the right of the winning goal on your piece of paper.
- Bet the sum of the right two numbers on your piece of paper. If there is just one number, then bet that.
- If you win, then cross off the right two numbers. If you lose, then add the amount bet as a new element on the list to the right side
- Go back to step 5, until you cross off all numbers or run out of money
Is this right? What if the player is not satisfied to win just one unit? Does he tend to keep repeating this process?
This will all eventually end up in both a new page and video on the Fibonacci Betting System, so I welcome input.
The question for the poll is what do you think of the Fibonacci?
Last edited by: unnamed administrator on Jun 11, 2020
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 13th, 2020 at 8:58:34 PM
permalink
Keep losing 10 in a row without putting 2 wins together in 60 hands.
May 13th, 2020 at 11:37:54 PM
permalink
I thought the Fibonacci was a way to raise bets without doing a straight martingale. There should be no need to write numbers down like with a labouchere.
The way I understood it you tried to have 2 successful wagers in a row. So if you lost ten straight following the string and won just 2x it results in a profit and significantly more than a martingale.
The sequence of the last two numbers will always result in the same string.
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55etc. Therefore you don't have to add numbers or cross off. Just keep the Fibonacci string memorized.
So let's take lose eight times, win two.
You lose 1+1+2+3+5+8+13+21 = 54 units lost.
Winning two straight then is 34 + 55 = 89 units won
Profit 35 units. Notice the profit if successful is the amount of the next to last wager made plus one.
There may be more than one Fibonacci method but since the number string is always the same writing numbers down should not be necessary
EDIT: I seem to recall a variation that did require writing it down. It went like this and was meant to deal with a win/lose scenario.
You write down the sequence and try to win two in a row which ends the sequence wherever you are
If you lose all the wagers (bankroll or you hit table max) that ends the sequence.
And if you win one then lose the next you cross off the two previous wagers that added up.
From the above example, if you wagered 34 units and won, then 55 and lost, you would cross off the 13 and 21 (which added up to the 34 units wager) and go ahead with the 89 units wager (34+55=89)
The purpose of that was to effect a win with a bouncy table as well. Eventually you would still wind up with all the numbers crossed off. Unless you hit another lose lose streak
The way I understood it you tried to have 2 successful wagers in a row. So if you lost ten straight following the string and won just 2x it results in a profit and significantly more than a martingale.
The sequence of the last two numbers will always result in the same string.
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55etc. Therefore you don't have to add numbers or cross off. Just keep the Fibonacci string memorized.
So let's take lose eight times, win two.
You lose 1+1+2+3+5+8+13+21 = 54 units lost.
Winning two straight then is 34 + 55 = 89 units won
Profit 35 units. Notice the profit if successful is the amount of the next to last wager made plus one.
There may be more than one Fibonacci method but since the number string is always the same writing numbers down should not be necessary
EDIT: I seem to recall a variation that did require writing it down. It went like this and was meant to deal with a win/lose scenario.
You write down the sequence and try to win two in a row which ends the sequence wherever you are
If you lose all the wagers (bankroll or you hit table max) that ends the sequence.
And if you win one then lose the next you cross off the two previous wagers that added up.
From the above example, if you wagered 34 units and won, then 55 and lost, you would cross off the 13 and 21 (which added up to the 34 units wager) and go ahead with the 89 units wager (34+55=89)
The purpose of that was to effect a win with a bouncy table as well. Eventually you would still wind up with all the numbers crossed off. Unless you hit another lose lose streak
Last edited by: darkoz on May 13, 2020
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
May 14th, 2020 at 12:18:47 AM
permalink
These kinds of things are all over stocks. Guess enough believe in it for it to be true or it is. Other times just bad data, wall street sales pitch, stonks always go up. Fibanacci probably best idea which isn't gambler's fallacy. I'm really overdo to take notes.
I am a robot.
May 14th, 2020 at 8:38:03 AM
permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracleI'm really overdo to take notes.
Yeah. That's why I think this video series is a good idea (although I'm not sure the Wizard does). To me the positives are:
- Betting systems can increase the fun factor for some games, especially the this/that, player/banker, black/red type.
- If you wish to be a well rounded and knowledgeable player, you should at least know the basics of the more common systems. That way you'll recognize them when you see them.
- It's hard to tell people that their system doesn't work if you have to confess that you don't know how their system works.
- Sometimes studying a betting system will spark an idea for a more legitimate pursuit.
I'm really only familiar with the Martingale and D'Alembert systems so I'm enjoying this.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
May 14th, 2020 at 9:10:27 AM
permalink
Quote: ChumpChangeKeep losing 10 in a row without putting 2 wins together in 60 hands.
Why would you play a game
where you can lose 10 in a row,
Know a game before you play
it or don't play.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
May 14th, 2020 at 9:18:40 AM
permalink
If I can win 10 in a row, I can lose 10 in a row. But I've had much worse luck.
May 14th, 2020 at 1:18:58 PM
permalink
I meant about what would be stupid money in gambling is wise in investing. You don't need a system if you're neg EV gambling, just gambling is the system trying to stay in denial. Worst system is I the knew I should have done that, best system is I knew I should have done that.Quote: GialmereYeah. That's why I think this video series is a good idea (although I'm not sure the Wizard does). To me the positives are:
- Betting systems can increase the fun factor for some games, especially the this/that, player/banker, black/red type.
- If you wish to be a well rounded and knowledgeable player, you should at least know the basics of the more common systems. That way you'll recognize them when you see them.
- It's hard to tell people that their system doesn't work if you have to confess that you don't know how their system works.
- Sometimes studying a betting system will spark an idea for a more legitimate pursuit.
I'm really only familiar with the Martingale and D'Alembert systems so I'm enjoying this.
I am a robot.
May 14th, 2020 at 1:30:30 PM
permalink
Let me post some Fibonacci examples. Assume a bet unit is $1.
Example 1:
Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.
Bet #2: $1, win, balance = $0.
Are you done at this point? Sources I read say "move two numbers down the sequence after a win. That would bring you off the list.
Example 2:
Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.
Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-1.
Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.
Bet #4: $3, win, balance = $-1.
Bet #5: $1, win, balance = $0.
I could ask the same question, are you done at this point, breaking even?
Example 3:
Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.
Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-2.
Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.
Bet #4: $3, loss, balance = $-7.
Bet #5: $5, win, balance = $-2.
Bet #6: $2, win, balance = $0.
Bet #7: $1, win, balance = $1.
It seems to me that if your last winning bet is from the first 1, then you profit a unit. If it's from the second 1, then you break even only.
Do I have this right?
Example 1:
Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.
Bet #2: $1, win, balance = $0.
Are you done at this point? Sources I read say "move two numbers down the sequence after a win. That would bring you off the list.
Example 2:
Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.
Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-1.
Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.
Bet #4: $3, win, balance = $-1.
Bet #5: $1, win, balance = $0.
I could ask the same question, are you done at this point, breaking even?
Example 3:
Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.
Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-2.
Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.
Bet #4: $3, loss, balance = $-7.
Bet #5: $5, win, balance = $-2.
Bet #6: $2, win, balance = $0.
Bet #7: $1, win, balance = $1.
It seems to me that if your last winning bet is from the first 1, then you profit a unit. If it's from the second 1, then you break even only.
Do I have this right?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 14th, 2020 at 1:40:43 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardLet me post some Fibonacci examples. Assume a bet unit is $1.
Example 1:
Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.
Bet #2: $1, win, balance = $0.
Are you done at this point? Sources I read say "move two numbers down the sequence after a win. That would bring you off the list.
Example 2:
Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.
Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-1.
Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.
Bet #4: $3, win, balance = $-1.
Bet #5: $1, win, balance = $0.
I could ask the same question, are you done at this point, breaking even?
Example 3:
Bet #1: $1, loss, balance = -$1.
Bet #2: $1, loss, balance = $-2.
Bet #3: $2, loss, balance = $-4.
Bet #4: $3, loss, balance = $-7.
Bet #5: $5, win, balance = $-2.
Bet #6: $2, win, balance = $0.
Bet #7: $1, win, balance = $1.
It seems to me that if your last winning bet is from the first 1, then you profit a unit. If it's from the second 1, then you break even only.
Do I have this right?
But then it's just a martingale with only profit of one unit per session
By making the second win the next number in the Fibonacci sequence you can lose many in a row, just win twice and secure a decent profit (not that it overcomes house edge but at least the profit potential is higher if you go for it
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
May 14th, 2020 at 1:44:08 PM
permalink
I've been searching all over the web trying to find an answer to my question about why the Fibonacci breaks even so often. Here is one of the better pages on the topic: Fibonacci Betting System from CasinoGuardian.
Image source: CasinoGuardian.co.uk.
Note bet #9, which won. Why did the player move only ONE position to the left for the next bet? Shouldn't he have gone from 3 to 1?
Image source: CasinoGuardian.co.uk.
Note bet #9, which won. Why did the player move only ONE position to the left for the next bet? Shouldn't he have gone from 3 to 1?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 14th, 2020 at 1:46:54 PM
permalink
Quote: darkozBut then it's just a martingale with only profit of one unit per session
By making the second win the next number in the Fibonacci sequence you can lose many in a row, just win twice and secure a decent profit (not that it overcomes house edge but at least the profit potential is higher if you go for it
I'm not sure I see your point.
With the Martingale, you need to win only once to profit a unit. With Fibonacci, you may need many wins. I would compare it with the Labourchere, where you need to win more than 1/3 of your bets to be successful.
I do not see your point about winning twice.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 14th, 2020 at 1:59:06 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI'm not sure I see your point.
With the Martingale, you need to win only once to profit a unit. With Fibonacci, you may need many wins. I would compare it with the Labourchere, where you need to win more than 1/3 of your bets to be successful.
I do not see your point about winning twice.
I think you missed my example earlier in the thread
The way I learned the Fibonacci was you kept rising in the sequence.
So lose 8 straight for example
1+1+2+3+5+8+13+21 = 54 units lost.
Next two wagers in sequence is 34 and 55. You keep going up until you win twice in a row.
So win 34 + 55 and after losing 8 straight (54 units) you now win back 89(34+55)
This means a long streak can be survived by just two back to back wins.
This is how a martingale works in that you keep rising until you achieve a win (this case two wins)
It allows more wagers because you are not doubling each time
Besides the longer chance to rise before table max it also is better than a martingale because the profit potential rises with risks.
With martingale you always wind up with the same single unit profit. With Fibonacci in this manner the higher wagers result in higher profit
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
May 14th, 2020 at 2:09:29 PM
permalink
Quote: darkozI think you missed my example earlier in the thread
The way I learned the Fibonacci was you kept rising in the sequence.
So lose 8 straight for example
1+1+2+3+5+8+13+21 = 54 units lost.
Next two wagers in sequence is 34 and 55. You keep going up until you win twice in a row.
So win 34 + 55 and after losing 8 straight (54 units) you now win back 89(34+55)
This means a long streak can be survived by just two back to back wins.
This is how a martingale works in that you keep rising until you achieve a win (this case two wins)
It allows more wagers because you are not doubling each time
Besides the longer chance to rise before table max it also is better than a martingale because the profit potential rises with risks.
With martingale you always wind up with the same single unit profit. With Fibonacci in this manner the higher wagers result in higher profit
I like that, but it doesn't seem to be the way the Fibonacci is explained on other sites.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 14th, 2020 at 2:15:03 PM
permalink
My blackjack game is starting to give me double and triple splits to double down on and lose (or win or push). I shouldn't use this system for that.
May 14th, 2020 at 2:17:30 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI like that, but it doesn't seem to be the way the Fibonacci is explained on other sites.
Well it's possible I altered it myself.
It was one of the first systems I tried as an systems player 30 years ago.
I had a very small bankroll so it never worked.
What analysis of my version do you find? It sounds better than crossing off and lowering bets
For example if you hit a bouncy table (win-loss-win-loss) you still make a profit eventually
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
May 14th, 2020 at 4:13:32 PM
permalink
Quote: darkozWell it's possible I altered it myself.
If I write about it, may I call it the DarkOz variant?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 14th, 2020 at 4:17:01 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardIf I write about it, may I call it the DarkOz variant?
Yeah, I like the sound of that.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
May 14th, 2020 at 5:18:50 PM
permalink
I thought you parlayed that win, so $34 + $68 = $102 less $54 for profit of $48. Or is that just DeMango variant?
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
May 14th, 2020 at 5:32:09 PM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoI thought you parlayed that win, so $34 + $68 = $102 less $54 for profit of $48. Or is that just DeMango variant?
That's called switching to a martingale
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
May 14th, 2020 at 5:36:59 PM
permalink
This system would guarantee a profit on bets with a probability of winning of less than (1 - golden ratio) = .382, assuming unlimited bankroll and no table limits.
I can only guess people use this system because it simplifies the next bet amount...it’s generally much easier to just use the next Fibonacci number than to multiply the last wager by the appropriate factor. If, for instance, the event had a probability of .27, then the exact factor to increase each wager by would be 1 / (1 - .27) = 1.3699, which isn’t something you can quickly calculate in your head
I can only guess people use this system because it simplifies the next bet amount...it’s generally much easier to just use the next Fibonacci number than to multiply the last wager by the appropriate factor. If, for instance, the event had a probability of .27, then the exact factor to increase each wager by would be 1 / (1 - .27) = 1.3699, which isn’t something you can quickly calculate in your head
It’s all about making that GTA
May 14th, 2020 at 7:08:18 PM
permalink
no you parlay the $34. Win and back to base. Martingale back to base after one win.Quote: darkozThat's called switching to a martingale
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
May 14th, 2020 at 8:27:18 PM
permalink
If the darkoz variant of the Fibonacci is to play until you win twice in a row, then the following table shows the net win, according to the larger of the two consecutive bets won.
| Step | Largest Bet | Net win |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | n/a |
| 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 2 | 2 |
| 4 | 3 | 3 |
| 5 | 5 | 4 |
| 6 | 8 | 6 |
| 7 | 13 | 9 |
| 8 | 21 | 14 |
| 9 | 34 | 22 |
| 10 | 55 | 35 |
| 11 | 89 | 56 |
| 12 | 144 | 90 |
| 13 | 233 | 145 |
| 14 | 377 | 234 |
| 15 | 610 | 378 |
| 16 | 987 | 611 |
| 17 | 1,597 | 988 |
| 18 | 2,584 | 1,598 |
| 19 | 4,181 | 2,585 |
| 20 | 6,765 | 4,182 |
| 21 | 10,946 | 6,766 |
| 22 | 17,711 | 10,947 |
| 23 | 28,657 | 17,712 |
| 24 | 46,368 | 28,658 |
| 25 | 75,025 | 46,369 |
| 26 | 121,393 | 75,026 |
| 27 | 196,418 | 121,394 |
| 28 | 317,811 | 196,419 |
| 29 | 514,229 | 317,812 |
| 30 | 832,040 | 514,230 |
| 31 | 1,346,269 | 832,041 |
| 32 | 2,178,309 | 1,346,270 |
| 33 | 3,524,578 | 2,178,310 |
| 34 | 5,702,887 | 3,524,579 |
| 35 | 9,227,465 | 5,702,888 |
| 36 | 14,930,352 | 9,227,466 |
| 37 | 24,157,817 | 14,930,353 |
| 38 | 39,088,169 | 24,157,818 |
| 39 | 63,245,986 | 39,088,170 |
| 40 | 102,334,155 | 63,245,987 |
| 41 | 165,580,141 | 102,334,156 |
| 42 | 267,914,296 | 165,580,142 |
| 43 | 433,494,437 | 267,914,297 |
| 44 | 701,408,733 | 433,494,438 |
| 45 | 1,134,903,170 | 701,408,734 |
| 46 | 1,836,311,903 | 1,134,903,171 |
| 47 | 2,971,215,073 | 1,836,311,904 |
| 48 | 4,807,526,976 | 2,971,215,074 |
| 49 | 7,778,742,049 | 4,807,526,977 |
| 50 | 12,586,269,025 | 7,778,742,050 |
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 14th, 2020 at 9:23:08 PM
permalink
Here is the Wizard variant of the Fibonacci -- Same as the original post, except if you win a bet at the second step in the Fibonacci (or second 1), then you go back only ONE step. This should ensure the player either wins one unit or busts out. No more ending with a push.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
May 28th, 2020 at 10:32:55 PM
permalink
Quote:Note that despite winning 6 bets out of 16 only (37.5%), the player finally comes out ahead.
Yup. That's where the snake oil gets sold. It's also (I confess) where the fun is if you decide to tinker with systems.
I don't think the page needs it but, if you're looking for more examples, Pai Gow Poker is another popular, single bet win/lose game where systems get action.
I'm looking forward to the video.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
June 5th, 2020 at 12:06:58 PM
permalink
refers to the ordered sequence of numbers described by Leonardo de Pisa
June 10th, 2020 at 7:27:45 AM
permalink
I finally have what I'll call "version 2" of my Fibonacci video. Version 1 had too many technical issues to even be possible put together a video.
Direct: https://youtu.be/Cds0ZebNBeE
The video is in "private" mode for now, so I welcome comments before I make it permanent. I also welcome ideas for the next betting system to analyze.
Direct: https://youtu.be/Cds0ZebNBeE
The video is in "private" mode for now, so I welcome comments before I make it permanent. I also welcome ideas for the next betting system to analyze.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
June 10th, 2020 at 1:27:24 PM
permalink
you've got this down now. Never thought I'd find these things interestingQuote: WizardI finally have what I'll call "version 2" of my Fibonacci video.
by all means do one of the "ones that usually lose but sometimes have a huge win"Quote:The video is in "private" mode for now, so I welcome comments before I make it permanent. I also welcome ideas for the next betting system to analyze.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
June 10th, 2020 at 6:04:19 PM
permalink
For starters, your new camera and microphone was money well spent. The video is now crisp and easy on the eyes (no Angela required), while the audio clarity has greatly increased. (Did you also get new lighting or is that just the quality camera?)
I agree with odiousgambit: you got this down pat. While I rarely toy with systems, I want to be a well rounded player who can spot one when I see one.
There is a rough edit when you return to "live" action at the end which you might want to smooth out.
Overall: Two Thumbs Up!
--------------------
If you're taking requests, my favorite system to mess around with is the D'Alembert. I enjoy this (call it a) "cautious Martingale" because it's fun (and easy) to tweak to your tastes. Or, as I like to joke, my system has a modified D'Alembert engine that runs on high octane gambler's fallacy.
I agree with odiousgambit: you got this down pat. While I rarely toy with systems, I want to be a well rounded player who can spot one when I see one.
There is a rough edit when you return to "live" action at the end which you might want to smooth out.
Overall: Two Thumbs Up!
--------------------
If you're taking requests, my favorite system to mess around with is the D'Alembert. I enjoy this (call it a) "cautious Martingale" because it's fun (and easy) to tweak to your tastes. Or, as I like to joke, my system has a modified D'Alembert engine that runs on high octane gambler's fallacy.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
June 11th, 2020 at 6:43:11 AM
permalink
Thank you very much, all, for the kind remarks!
Almost everything is new with that video -- camera, microphone, and the software that put it together.
Good idea. Many moons ago, when I was in my early 20's, I sometimes played a system that I made up, but maybe it has a name. It went as follows:
1. Decide your unit amount. Mine was invariably $5 (back then $5 blackjack was easy to find).
2. Bet on unit.
3. After a WIN increase your bet by your unit size.
4. After a loss, drop back to a one unit bet.
This system would kill you in a choppy game, but did sometimes result in a nice windfall.
Anyone ever hear of anything like this?
Almost everything is new with that video -- camera, microphone, and the software that put it together.
Quote: odiousgambitby all means do one of the "ones that usually lose but sometimes have a huge win"
Good idea. Many moons ago, when I was in my early 20's, I sometimes played a system that I made up, but maybe it has a name. It went as follows:
1. Decide your unit amount. Mine was invariably $5 (back then $5 blackjack was easy to find).
2. Bet on unit.
3. After a WIN increase your bet by your unit size.
4. After a loss, drop back to a one unit bet.
This system would kill you in a choppy game, but did sometimes result in a nice windfall.
Anyone ever hear of anything like this?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
June 11th, 2020 at 7:50:50 AM
permalink
I guess a reverse martingale is not exactly the same thing, but if you wanted to go with a named thing, you could do that, or a modification. Increases after a win could be a reverse fibonacci ? Perhaps interesting because increased size of a snail shell follows a fibonacci pattern [I think I've heard]
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
