in hindsight to your first few posts you seem to be getting it wrong every time... I would keep trying but I think EW analysis is flawed unless you add in other external factors.
You need to look closer and read more carefully. I have been having much success. ok i promise to look again the trade is a swing from this level to 3000 yuan. come back in two weeks and stop pestering me. |
|
|
|
|
The price action to the down side here is not consistent with a valid wave v count, we will likely bounce at the 2165 level. However the price action is evidence that this is not the primary and we should fall back on our wave v count. I will be looking to buy lower. We should be able to close the trade out at minimal loss and perhaps a small profit before it comes.
|
|
|
|
You mean in the short term there is a greater chance of going up, but for the medium term going down to mid 2xx is still possible.
Whats your target for this short term upside?
I am speaking of many time scales. The point of this thread was to determine if 2xx was probable, we now have evidence to suggest it is probable. I would encourage all to prepare for mid 200s. what I am saying for this trade, where we expect a wave C rally to around $460, or 3000 yuan, is that although wave C might not have begun we can still expect more retracement of the last down leg upwards. My target is 3000 yuan! but I may have to let go of my position if this presents any evidence wave C has not begun. this will probably happen now or at around 2240 if it happens at all. |
|
|
|
We have a signal. This count is not perfect, we have a slightly diminished wave v, but I think it is a good signal because we have bounced off the 0.618 fib and completed a satisfying abc correction, motion downwards is not impulsive. This entails that even if the upward count is an abc we will likely see upwards movement before more downside. The stoploss levels for this trade are well defined and great risk reward, 2165 in china, and for the west I would place my stop at around 350 under those hammers. While risk reward is excellent at current levels, the risk of failure is always greater in early stages of the trend because we have less evidence. We will have more signals to add positions as the trend begins. Dont risk it all on this position.  |
|
|
|
in hindsight to your first few posts you seem to be getting it wrong every time... I would keep trying but I think EW analysis is flawed unless you add in other external factors.
You need to look closer and read more carefully. I have been having much success. |
|
|
|
It is too early for any conclusions, but this action is impulsive. As I cannot yet be sure if we have fully completed the impulsive down It could be part of an abc or a primary wave. Here are some critical levels I am watching, very bullish if both broken. These are NOT breakout trade set ups. We want more evidence for a killer setup.  |
|
|
|
|
madmat, trading is tough. I dont know what your strategy was or even if you made a genuine mistake, we all lose sometimes. I didnt give any conclusive trade for wave c(B) because I knew this would be a tricky bugger to ride down, one needs to be active and adaptive to ride it. There will likely be a higher confidence trade coming, this time I can offer robust levels to set stop losses and a bigger picture.
Best of luck and thanks for your comments.
|
|
|
|
We have seen the worst of it, possibly the bottom. We have an impulsive wave that hit our expected target at 2160 (2158 Huobi) the 0.5 fib and seems complete. Now the search begins for an impulsive wave upwards, or a conclusive termination of the downwards impulse. We will likely have great buy opportunity in the next 48 hours. We are very currently close to at least a daily local bottom.   |
|
|
|
We have had an impulse to the downside, the body of it has come and gone. We need a wave v to complete the move down. 2180 looks like a fair level for the bottom. This is what I am expecting. We might have a good buy signal at the very bottom for dare devils by the way this is unfolding.  |
|
|
|
|
we should expect this to reach 2160 an at least 2240. those are profit targets, not buy targets.
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday when I said the triangle was invalidated I think it was by a matter of one or two yuan. The price has bounced from that level. I dare say the triangle is still a possibility, but as always we need evidence of impulsive before we take any action.
|
|
|
|
We have broken through the 2320 level, invalidating the triangle. a c wave flat correction will continue likely bottoming on the 0.318 or 0.5 fib (2165 or 2250) as originally expected. This is really a good thing for bulls because we will be offered great risk reward buy opportunity at a lower price soon. I cant advise shorting this breakout but if you have your own strategy for trading then I can at least say we should be going down.  |
|
|
|
Can complex, sophisticated algorithms enable safe and reliably profitable trading over reasonably long time periods? Sure, sufficient evidence for that is available. But these are in a completely different league than arbitrarily chosen lines drawn by humans with bullish/bearish glasses on or absurdly simplistic indicators that provide hardly any more information than a good look at the bare chart itself This is not what is in dispute LOL. There is TA which can be explained in detailed in scientific terms alike to algorithms if not better. |
|
|
|
|
the TA bashers all use ad hominem, lol.
|
|
|
|
Its a fallacy for two reasons to say that 'TA' is bogus because not everybody wins using it. Reason one, most people HAVE to lose, it's a zero sum game! Reason two, a lot of technical analysts are trolls and cant explain a single thing about what they are doing. There are some very robust laws playing out in the market that have to be respected. Ask any economist who 'understands the fundamentals' (  ). He might tell you that forces of the market act to restore equilibrium. they do! a physics scientist will also tell you that this is exactly the model of a simple sine wave. In other words what goes up must come down. If the technical analyst uses leading indicators that effectively can measure momentum, acceleration and deceleration in price action, he has officially a legitimate mathematic and scientific edge in probability of choosing low and high prices to buy and sell. gosh, really? what the hell does "equilibrium" have to do with it? you think there are really hard and fast rules to any market? seriously dude, forget this sine wave thing. it's rubbish seriously. the closest thing to a market is a game of chess or poker. that's it. everything else, any rules or moving averages, indicators, or statistics, are incorrect. how could you figure out the best move in chess by using statistics? clearly it would not work. the same goes for this sine wave thing. there are no logical rules to chess, just as there are no logicl rules to how a market works. the way you win chess is to get inside the mind of the other player. that's why computers who are good at chess search through all the different possible moves and pick the best one. they dont perform any statistical analysis of previous gameplay, on the assumption that future gameplay will be like the past. the same is true of markets. to figure out how the market is going to move, you have to get inside the mind of the average trader. any other strategy or technique is pure bullshit. we all know that indicators may occasionally work, but because they have no scientific merit they are not hard and fast and will fail. there are multiple philisophical points that are brough up by this discussion, interestingly. but ultimately how your model works is more important than the output. if you base your model on incorrect assumptions, you are never going to get a satisfactory output. and that is where 99% of market predictions or indicators go wrong. the only way to make money from indicators - or more broadly any form of technical analysis - is to sell them to other traders on false claims. john bollinger has done a pretty good job of that. Im looking hard, really hard, but I cant find any facts here. lot of fallacies though. |
|
|
|
Why should my analysis wouldn't be as legitimate as anybody else   This guy gets it ^^ |
|
|
|
Its a fallacy for two reasons to say that 'TA' is bogus because not everybody wins using it. Reason one, most people HAVE to lose, it's a zero sum game! Reason two, a lot of technical analysts are trolls and cant explain a single thing about what they are doing. There are some very robust laws playing out in the market that have to be respected. Ask any economist who 'understands the fundamentals' ( ). He might tell you that forces of the market act to restore equilibrium. they do! a physics scientist will also tell you that this is exactly the model of a simple sine wave. In other words what goes up must come down. If the technical analyst uses leading indicators that effectively can measure momentum, acceleration and deceleration in price action, he has officially a legitimate mathematic and scientific edge in probability of choosing low and high prices to buy and sell. |
|
|
|
|
Remember all that we do not have a trade until we have evidence and a good strategy. There have been a few set-ups on this thread where price action has failed to meet EW criteria and yet move in the direction of our trade. This is not a good signal at all.
Predictable waves that we can read and profit from are usually caused when the crowd becomes irrational and makes a mistake. We dont know very well when they are going to do that, but we can see it when they do. We must be patient and yet be there to pounce on the good trades. This is terribly hard to do, especially when one is in the habbit of winning. Trading is brutal that is all I can say.
|
|
|
|
This wave down could be wave e of the triangle as I have illustrated above, or it could be a continuation of wave minor c. In other words, it is still not best to trade this until we have evidence of wave major C.
Another EW analyst pointed out to me some counts accross other exchanges that suggest we are still in wave c. could be right. As I have said many times, wave B was always going to be choppy and likely unclear. We must wait patiently for hard evidence that wave C is under way.
Yes, I'm also of the opinion that we're still in wave c of B. In the count you show above, wave C would have little room to move to the upside as wave 4 shouldn't retrace more than 50% of wave 3. Also, wave C should be at least as long as A and that would be close to impossible in this scenario. Just my thought though. I think those are all good points. The 50% fib is right in the middle of wave iv(III) so that's what I have been expecting. |
|
|
|
|
This wave down could be wave e of the triangle as I have illustrated above, or it could be a continuation of wave minor c. In other words, it is still not best to trade this until we have evidence of wave major C.
Another EW analyst pointed out to me some counts accross other exchanges that suggest we are still in wave c. could be right. As I have said many times, wave B was always going to be choppy and likely unclear. We must wait patiently for hard evidence that wave C is under way.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
