this here chart has nothing to do with any kind of wave V. the chance that greater wave V needs to happen is still not clear.

Chart is threatening downside here... perhaps best be ready for it. Might offer a great buy signal around 2200.....

glad to help if I can,


I think we could be in a state of third wave, and I mean (iii) of iii. imo good chance we will be at 2400 in 24 hours. call me crazy..... this is all working to plan pretty nicely.

This is playing out as expected. cant be sure where this impulse fits in but we can expect an abc retrace of this wave. like to be 0.382 or 0.5 in these conditions. A full retrace would likely mean we are revisiting 2060 but I dont think this is likely and bullish outlook remains unchanged in either case. This is no good reason to short. If you like to lock in profits maybe take a small amount here. Im holding as usual.

Sure could.

That is really 50/50 at this stage! good chance we return to test 275. The dominant forecast is 3000yuan medium term and then slow wave V retest of 275.

It shouldnt be a big deal to holders. even if we retest 275 why not get some bitcoin while they are fairy low now. It makes a lot of difference to leveraged traders. could be highly profitable to trade a couple more swings before the next giant bubble!

This is short term forecast but it is not a trade at all. dont short this. Hold your long tight if you got in in the 2000's

There is still a small possibility to correct to 2060, the lowest I would expect. If is this happened it would suggest a week or two sideways before more up passing the local highs.

There is also a very good chance that we are in a state of relentless up trend and that we will trend steadily not revisiting 2120 until we reach our destination. Picture the May 680 rally.

Every short scalp I've taken since 2050s has been regrettable.  this is just how the bitcoin honey badger works. shorting anything here is just a plain bad idea imo, regardless of down side potential. dont be distracted from the mediu upside potential.

Umm I should say the size of wave V is affected by the size of wave I and III. wave V will be in fibonacci terms of wave III and I. I+III=1.618V for example. wave V+I=1 or 0.618 wave III. as a rule of thumb wave V is 0.618 wave III. if wave III is far greater than wave I, say 1.8 or 2.8, then wave V may be truncated to preserve I+III=1.618V for example.

The size of wave V is affected by the size of wave III. the Maximum price of wave V is affected by the depth of wave IV. The deeper Iv the lower the extreme of V will be.

with the abc correction turning out very shallow it seems this would be a good breakout signal.

current count

I am catering for both situations. The conclusion I came to at the beginning of the thread we that we need wave V. this wave V would either be shallow or truncated because wave III was extended. Then I suggested wave V came in place of wave B to explain bearish price action, but really both truncated V and abc (IV) are both still possible.

Why I say it is consistent with my analysis is that I see a need for a rally to around 480 in either case.

So the bounce has been denied leaving by process of elimination just one most probable situation left.

Chances are we will be offered a great buy signal in the 2050 area. fingers crossed.

This is another nice count of wave greater C by Ronald Bringer that is consistent with my forecast.

if you took this trade down low its time to move your stop loss to breakeven. still a fair chance we will see further downside her, but good news is that the beast is cornered.

two thing can happen here.

Actually I think EW works in any large liquid system on the assumption that traders haven't got a damn clue. buying at the top is irrational, and there's only one kind of irrational imo   certainly traders are not actively forming EW patterns as if that was the goal.

I think the analyst that sees all zig-zags must be 5-3-5 is overcomplicating things where there is a better explanation imo. If its difficult to identify 5-3-5 they might see instead (5-3-5)-x-(5-3-5) for the sake of that rule where reducing to that scale of fractal is not ideal. There are too many solutions to counting complex correctives in xyz formations. we could simply say (5-3-5)-x-(5-3-5) = 3-3-3.

Imo I think we just have to remember the roots of EW analysis. the fib sequence. We only use the two ratios from the sequence, the first two, 1/2 and 2/3. these are the strongest harmonic ratios that occur everywhere just as the golden ratio does, for example in music every note is derived from a single pitch and the ratios 1/2 and 2/3. All other ratios we use are actually just terms of these. We observe that movement in the direction of the trend are of 2/3 (3 up, 2 down) and corrective 1/2 (2 down, 1 up)

EDIT: of coarse my point being that 1/2 ratio leads to a 3 wave species and a 2/3 ratio leads to 5 wave species.

EDIT AGAIN: and I see that 5-3-5 woud actually correctly describe the direction of the trend within a correction but where a correction may be summarised to xyz-X-abc etc... practically we can consider the whole nature of a corrective as non impusive when we are not gifted impulsives.

This source says that wave A in a zig zag must be impulsive? Ive heard a few EW analysts say this before but my experience tells me its not true. correctives literally have no motive they can produce some real curve balls.

If we get another weak wave to 2080 or so and then a break out of this wedge it would be an excellent buy opportunity, stop under 2080 for scalpers. This could be the end of the correction that is why it is worth scalping. If not, the bounce should be big enough to make a reasonable profit or break even, so it is worth the risk buying a breakout here.

We were only talking about the correction from 2150. has nothing to do with the 2xx situation sorry 

looking at my recent chart the fib0.5 and 0.618 are at 2050 and 2030, or 336 and 332.

There are three major ways to pick turning points with EW, thats using price action at levels, using breakout/invalidation/validation level, or trendline breakouts.

Ideally we have a clear count/price action and can pick the bottom exactly, but thats not always the case. Sometimes we have to summarise all possible sub counts and condense all of them into one invalidation level that breaks them all. In either case we dont have enough evidence for either yet. Otherwise we can use counter trendline breakout for a sure confirmation everytime but this one is late. Ideally we would like clear price action and then broken levels to pick a bottom.

So really I dont know where or when the bottom is gonna be, but Ill probably see when we get there. he only guideline I can use it to expect a fair retrace of 0.618 or 0.5.