 I expect a continuation of the downward trend. very good, i notice that bear pennant, too. we will break out down. but everyone is still screaming BUBBLE and none of my data seriously suggests that we'll break below $90 in the mid-term. any other arguments for this besides that? |
|
|
|
that triangle is just LOL
wow
upper line has two points of contact, lower line is pure speculation. 'LOL' isn't exactly constructive  --arepo |
|
|
|
midterm projections still on track: based on some fractal analysis, the lowest feasible bottom is around $90. i suspect that's where the support will be if we break $120. it's amazing, but we're still 'consolidating' in huge, week-long swings from the 10 April crash: -===-  -===- modeling this with the classic triangle consolidation pattern, we get a similar picture, but unfortunately, it's difficult to tell what the slope of the bottom support is. if it is a flat-bottomed triangle, then $90 will be the support (yellow line); if it is a symmetrical triangle, we may see prices even lower (white line) before we reach the short-term bottom. what are you guys anticipating? --arepo |
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from: arepo on 20:01:44, 27 April 2013 you guys are fools if you think we're going to break $120 any time soon. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  thanks for the accountability. i qualified this failed prediction a few posts ago: Broke out the wrong way
Again stop using triangles dammit.
why not? the breakout was anticipated perfectly, the direction not so much. working on an accountability report right now, trying to determine the factors that contributed to the failure of the last projection. --arepo I could save you some time - someone dumped 10k coins, and some others dumped 2 x 5000 earlier. People were not buying in masses in meantime. That's it, I should patent a name for it, DUMPA20000 or something  yes, i was watching, and it was clear that the dump was a single or a few entities, not an emergent movement. there's a lot of bearish news in the air, and the market is short-term overbought. i'm trying to determine if we should expect $120 to hold, or if we're gearing up for a correction-to-the-correction of the bullish move to $165. i highly suspect these individuals were attempting to 'paint the tape', as a very bullish consolidation turned very suddenly into a very bearish picture. this event will be good to consider in another problem i'm working on, can/does price manipulation break standard methods of TA?. --arepo notme also added his (very valuable) 2-cents: Artificially increasing the volatility will only transfer money from them to me. There are lots of other market makers that feel the same. In the long run, it will make no difference.
However, this is an excellent example of why no TA is perfect (I know you don't believe this yourself arepo, just picking a teaching moment for new traders). People will do what they want despite what any sane trader would say about the chart. This is because many trade bitcoin who do not understand how to use short time frame TA properly: to make a planned trade more efficiently. Using it speculatively is very risky when you look at short time frames.
--arepo |
|
|
|
Not at all a stab at your credentials. I don't think any B.S. will prepare you for it.
appreciated. nothing but diving in -- not even forex trading -- prepares you for bitcoin  |
|
|
|
You really have no idea where BTC is going, stop posting charts please.
and you don't have the qualifications to make this statement. stop posting about my work, please. |
|
|
|
this thread is a circus. and you, lizardman -- you're the ringleader. thanks for the overconfidence and letting me know that you were 'all-in', it was a very reliable contrarian indicator, and it paid my whole months rent as i slept peacefully.
Since when did you have a handle on the market? Yesterday morning you were full bull and saw the upward trend continuing. So you didn't see this coming yesterday, in fact predicted the opposite, and now you're lecturing people on charts and fundamentals? Technical Analysis people have no clue wtf they are talking about, dont put any credit into that guy this is stated quite a bit on the forums, and i always found it especially ironic because it seems to be the case that it really is the speaker's own ignorance that is being projected... very similar to what happened in the other thread with zanglebert. nothing against him, but you really need to inform yourself about a topic before passing judgment, or else you're no better than the people on something awful who circlejerk about how idiotic bitcoin is without ever fully understanding it. Since when did you have a handle on the market? Yesterday morning you were full bull and saw the upward trend continuing. So you didn't see this coming yesterday, in fact predicted the opposite, and now you're lecturing people on charts and fundamentals? Within 24 hours you were horrifically wrong. You probably need a timeout. But you did have 2 good charts showing the upward trend. Maybe you can photoshop those, since they're sorta upside down based on what actually happened.
yes, thank you for re-posting my work (from two days ago). i, unlike lizardman, fully accept that i am not 100% sure of price movements, and don't offer hundred-thousand-dollar put options. if you'd read on, i discussed that model and a few reasons why it may have failed so spectacularly. yesterday, after the triangle broke down, i immediately warned of a retest of $120. last night, i opened a short. tl;dr -- you're quote-mining, and it doesn't matter if i was wrong two days ago if i can still profit today |
|
|
|
I should also say that I don't think a B.S. in physics gives you anywhere near what is required to develop fractal or Fibonacci or whatever analysis on bitcoins.
To do this well, in my opinion, you would need a PhD in Finance with a background heavy in algorithmic techniques.
A B.S. in physics means that you know a little bit about all of physics but nothing very well.
while what you say is true, i can't tell if this is a stab at my credentials or what? a B.S. in physics is what taught me how to model previously unknown things within a mathematical framework stepwise, through a process of hypothesize --> test --> hypothesize -- > test --> etc --> conclude. a PhD in finance with a specialization in stochastic calculus would definitely be more impressive but it's not a two-way relation. but thanks for the backup  --arepo |
|
|
|
2/32*266=16.625 For perspective. 80% is very large indeed in the short term. That's why I bought the rebound, as it was near certain to retrace a lot. But over the long term? Many people are still sitting on huge unrealized profits. A too bullish sentiment is well displayed by upvote ratio and abundance of posts like this one. "Just hold, it will go up again". Make no mistake, the Great Dollar Extraction is here, and it has come to consume us. there will be a bear market, but it will (necessarily) end before most people think it will |
|
|
|
it can't be exactly like 2011
No, but 2011 is certainly a decent road map on how this thing is going to play out. i really disagree: the June '11 event cannot be compared to this. you can be a bear, but not for this reason.
how can this model account for the recent run-up to $165? nothing like that occurred after the $33 peak, and the proportions are entirely wrong: the run-up was much shorter, and the crash was much longer.
The run-up to $165 can be explained by the recent sentiment we've had of "It's different this time!". That caused a feedback-loop of more and more people thinking that things are different now, running up the price. Once the market comes to the realization that things really aren't different this time, that's when things will stop being different. this quote was a little ambiguous. i meant the run-up from the last ATH to $266. the first bit about $165 was pretext. the run-up was completely different (1000% over months?), and the crash was completely different (80% in days?). this is a completely different price pattern. almost like a reverse-June-bubble, who's run-up was as short as our crash, and whose crash was as long as our run-up. |
|
|
|
the June '11 event cannot be compared to this. you can be a bear, but not for this reason.
how can this model account for the recent run-up to $165? nothing like that occurred after the $33 peak, and the proportions are entirely wrong: the run-up was much shorter, and the crash was much longer.
The run-up to $165 can be explained by the recent sentiment we've had of "It's different this time!". That caused a feedback-loop of more and more people thinking that things are different now, running up the price. Once the market comes to the realization that things really aren't different this time, that's when things will stop being different. this quote was a little ambiguous. i meant the run-up from the last ATH to $266. the first bit about $165 was pretext. the run-up was completely different (1000% over months?), and the crash was completely different (80% in days?). this is a completely different price pattern. almost like a reverse-June-bubble, who's run-up was as short as our crash, and whose crash was as long as our run-up. |
|
|
|
Now, though this is also mentioned only for completeness, you obviously cannot have verified with your own hands that the terms used in physics are not nonsense. What you have verified is a certain set of facts that I am probably not disputing at all. I never said that physics is "wrong," as in F is not equal to ma, but that it answers the wrong questions and uses semantic obfuscation to cover up this fact. It's a serious problem, and every scientist should lament it.
the only problem here is that you're conflating philosophy and science. no scientist ever claimed that they could tell you what light is, only how it behaves. you also continue to use layman's terms and non-rigorous definitions, and then claim that those definitions suck. this is called strawmanning. the 'wave-packet' (or wave-particle duality) model is just as consistent as the wave model itself. it's incredibly hard for anybody, even scientists, to 'imagine what that means', because nobody said that the universe is supposed to be intuitive and easy-to-understand. we will never be able to tell you what matter is, what gravity is, et cetera. the words themselves refer to models, which are just brainstuff (memes, if you're familiar with the scientific meaning of that term). but the models reflect reality, and anyone can check this, and that is science. between the questions of "WHY" and "HOW", science answers the latter, intentionally (and not dishonestly) ignores the first, and demonstrates that we really do not have to know WHY forces exist in the first place in order to manipulate them. nor may science ever be able to answer that question, and this is a limitation that is well-known. would an answer to that even be useful in the way an answer to 'how' is? and you claim that it's useless altogether, because it's missing this? all science is pseudoscience based on this ridiculous definition, and we 'know' nothing, really. also, you are entirely incapable of holding this argument without strawmanning because of your lack of knowledge of the subject matter. this will be my last comment on this point. you seem to think that physics is just magic, and we'll "never be able to fully understand it", but you probably think computers and combustion engines are magic, too. physics satisfies any workable definition of 'science', and it really astounds me that you believe otherwise.. again, i ask you to use the perspective of someone who doesn't understand bitcoin, and see that you are making an analogous argument to 'bitcoin is not money', or any other argument-from-ignorance that we've seen across the years. back to topic... |
|
|
|
I called it yesterday. Such an easy call you amateurs
yeah we were very ripe for a short/mid-term bear. good call  |
|
|
|
Lucif, this is my count, what you think?  good call, btw -- you certainly saw it before me. --arepo |
|
|
|
It's like 2011 all over again. I honestly think it is. it can't be exactly like 2011, because everyone knows exactly what happened in 2011. that being said, it's also completely different, as i have argued many times this month. |
|
|
|
Since when did you have a handle on the market? Yesterday morning you were full bull and saw the upward trend continuing. So you didn't see this coming yesterday, in fact predicted the opposite, and now you're lecturing people on charts and fundamentals? Within 24 hours you were horrifically wrong. You probably need a timeout. But you did have 2 good charts showing the upward trend. Maybe you can photoshop those, since they're sorta upside down based on what actually happened.
yes, thank you for re-posting my work (from two days ago). i, unlike lizardman, fully accept that i am not 100% sure of price movements, and don't offer hundred-thousand-dollar put options. if you'd read on, i discussed that model and a few reasons why it may have failed so spectacularly. yesterday, after the triangle broke down, i immediately warned of a retest of $120. last night, i opened a short. tl;dr -- you're quote-mining, and it doesn't matter if i was wrong two days ago if i can still profit today |
|
|
|
arepo - I see your point with the triangles, but I don't understand how you can't take volume into play?
well after the fact, it's pretty convenient that what i called for has just played out. but i'm not quite sure what you mean? i'm not taking volume into account? --arepo |
|
|
|
You wouldn't listen. How are things now, arepo? this isn't the beginning of any long, slow, slide, i'll tell you that. we are very close to a market bottom, we just had to let off some steam. -===-  -===- RSI as low as our second visit to $50, yet the price is more than double. can you say bullish divergence? |
|
|
|
you guys are fools if you think we're going to break $120 any time soon.
Ditto. lol i forgot i said that. don't worry, i turned bear quickly enough. in the bitcoin world, the market can change direction that fast |
|
|
|
MANIPILATION! GOXLAG! SILKROAD! BITCOIN ATM? BEARTRAP! CAPITULATION! PRICE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT! this thread is a circus. and you, lizardman -- you're the ringleader. thanks for the overconfidence and letting me know that you were 'all-in', it was a very reliable contrarian indicator, and it paid my whole months rent as i slept peacefully. oh, and does your so-called 'fibonacci analysis' only work after we start crsahing? you changed your tune quite a bit once we broke that $120 wall. told you you ought to have parked some capital there.... if you were clever and not so self-absorbed as to be unable to interact appropriately with others, you'd have managed risk and kept liquid funds, made the bear put more accessible to people on the forum so that they'd actually take it (there was a decent amount of demand), and then parked the capital on $120. i think that may have helped soften this capitulation, and it would have been a great hedge. oh well xP |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
