Lucif, this is my count, what you think?  good call, btw -- you certainly saw it before me.  --arepo It got me for a second though...  the failed triangle breaking up got me for surprise. |
|
|
|
|
Ruptura falsa del triángulo con axis en $120. :') beautiful.
Ahora vamos a reprobar los $120 y volvemos a bajar. Proximo punto de aceleración sera la ruptura de $100. Si $100 rompe debemos encontrarnos con los $92-$88
|
|
|
|
you guys are fools if you think we're going to break $120 any time soon.
Ditto. lol i forgot i said that. don't worry, i turned bear quickly enough. in the bitcoin world, the market can change direction that fast humility is a virtue.  |
|
|
|
|
AXIS, te interesa el trading? Te interesa practicar trading? O solo compras tus bitcoins para tenerlos guardados?
Si te interesa el trading no creo q te sea "inútil" el análisis técnico.
El análisis técnico no predice nada, eso es un malentendido mítico de la gente que no entiende el AT.
El análisis técnico te ayuda a hacer una lectura de las condiciones actuales y te permite cerrar el espectro de posibles conclusiones.
Es como la meteorología. Yo puedo leer las condiciones actuales de una tormenta y especular sobre las posibles repercusiones q la tormenta tendrá, pero no puedo predecir si la tormenta afectará tu casa expecíficamente. Puedo especular que habrán inundaciones, pero no te puedo decir específicamente dónde.
Espero que me entiendas.
|
|
|
|
|
Y se sigue complicando la cosa...
|
|
|
|
Tienes que entender a los periodos a los que me refiero. También tienes que tener una perspectiva amplia de que el precio puede subir a largo plazo, bajar a medio plazo, y subir a corto plazo.
¿Sigues manteniendo, por tanto, que va a haber una larga bajada hasta los 50$ (con oscilaciones, claro) durante los próximos 4 o 5 meses? (esto es lo que te leí el 26 de abril, hace exactamente 4 días). Si... debe haber una bajada con oscilaciones que debe llegar cerca de los $50 o un poco más abajo de los $50. Eso va a tomar su tiempo, por el momento estoy esperando a ver cómo se define esta segunda etapa de (B). |
|
|
|
El corto plazo es lo que tiene…
Es que muchas veces las predicciones que se hacen no son a corto plazo. Hace muy pocos días le leí a siulynot que iba a haber una larga bajada que iba a durar meses. Al día siguiente decía que no, que nos íbamos para arriba. En fin... Tienes que entender a los periodos a los que me refiero. También tienes que tener una perspectiva amplia de que el precio puede subir a largo plazo, bajar a medio plazo, y subir a corto plazo. |
|
|
|
No surprises here, those positive seasonals are still in for another week
Suggest that triangle was wave b and we're starting c up now
most certainly |
|
|
|
Algo así espero  |
|
|
|
There is always an excuse if a prediction doesn't come true. Look the world didn't end on December 21st 2012, it will be next year for sure! Yeah right, just come down to earth and admit you don't know shit like the rest of us. Humility is underrated. if you are dealing with chaos and patterns there is no end of the world, and there is no infinite world. There are just patterns to be. |
|
|
|
A 3wave down correction confirms that there still up movement left for the (B). (C) Will be confirmed when we get 5waves down and 3 up.
i apologise, but i am not very familiar with specific EW terminology. i can't quite tell if you've answered my question. let me rephrase? in the model you presented which i quoted, was there any indication of up or down at all? or did you need this price movement confirmation for it to be useful as a predictive model? further, now that you have a confirmation, can you predict the next movement? or is it the same case, and can only be validated after-the-fact? Well, by text book, confirmation of a higher (B) should be at $167, confirming a higher high. I get biased for an up move since the correction after the $166 top was a 3 wave formation with a descending triangle that broke up. Though i thought the triangle should have broken down and there should have been another wave down for then a wave II formation to take place (which was my bias). The breaking up of the triangle makes me change perspective and eliminate the possibility of a 5 wave down for now (only to take place after another move up). The breaking up of the triangle is the first hint of another leg of (B), but that is confirmed once we go above $167. Right after $167 price should accelerate and struck the $180 (61% fibo retrace) or maybe around $200 which should be the 76% fibo retracement. |
|
|
|
OK, triangle broke up...
That leaves us with another possibility, we are still in (B)
so, just for some accountability -- what made you so sure of these statements? : If this is I of (C) then this is a descending triangle 4 of I of (C), which will make it to a II of (C) that will get to $150 or something like that (61% fibo retrace from $166 as of now. Would be lower, the lower I goes).
What every bull seems to want is for the price to go to $150 without completing the primery trend rules that is 5 waves in favor of trend and 3 contrary of trend.
If we had a bullish market until $266, then right now we are on primary down... doesnt matter how deflationary and how high bitcoin will go, it definetly is in a downtrend for now. And if that is the case then there should be 5 waves down now, we only have 4 since the $166 top of (B). if we have 5 waves down to $100 and then retrace to $150 then have another 5 waves down to maybe $80 or $60, then have another wave up to $120 then another wave to $32 then we have a text book complete correction and then we can go for the $3million or whatever price you think bitcoin should have.
... and how can you identify and correct a similar error in the future? if you cannot easily answer these questions, as i suspect, then your methods are not rigorous enough. A 3wave down correction confirms that there still up movement left for the (B). (C) Will be confirmed when we get 5waves down and 3 up. |
|
|
|
|
OK, triangle broke up...
That leaves us with another possibility, we are still in (B)
|
|
|
|
|
Bueno, el triángulo rompió hacia arriba. Eso nos deja una opción nueva:
Estamos en B todavia.
|
|
|
|
If this is I of (C) then this is a descending triangle 4 of I of (C), which will make it to a II of (C) that will get to $150 or something like that (61% fibo retrace from $166 as of now. Would be lower, the lower I goes).
What every bull seems to want is for the price to go to $150 without completing the primery trend rules that is 5 waves in favor of trend and 3 contrary of trend.
If we had a bullish market until $266, then right now we are on primary down... doesnt matter how deflationary and how high bitcoin will go, it definetly is in a downtrend for now. And if that is the case then there should be 5 waves down now, we only have 4 since the $166 top of (B). if we have 5 waves down to $100 and then retrace to $150 then have another 5 waves down to maybe $80 or $60, then have another wave up to $120 then another wave to $32 then we have a text book complete correction and then we can go for the $3million or whatever price you think bitcoin should have.
The "i know TA, you are the ignorant one" comment is a recursive one... learn to play it well...
unless of course, EW are not applicable here. i try to stay away from them for fear of apophenia also, TA refers to a variety of very different methods with different levels of applicability. everyone needs to cool it about 'who knows TA', it's not one thing. --arepo Why would EW not be applicable here?  The only way around the count i made is that this wave down is a 3 waver part of (B) which can have another leg up (Which is possible). Then (C) begins and should have 5 wave pattern. |
|
|
|
Stop it with the triangles already, if a method does fail multiple times it does not make sense to use it again till it works.
Its not the theory which fails, its the application. Triangles need to be redrawn how many times necessary until they make the last form, which should show the characteristics of the breakout. yes, but how many times are necessary? the technique you just described is exactly what many TA-naysayers hate -- constant re-drawing of arbitrary lines that wait for a confirmation to be validated after-the-fact. these methods are not predictive and are of little use. --arepo Oh yeah? How about your approach??? Is it more "functional"? "Fuck scientific observation of proving points of view... my gut always gets the right answers, because im just a bull and this will never go down." How different is that from... "hmm i think this definetly will go down... hhmm confirmation point for a trend change is $xx... oh $xx reached, this will go up!" EDIT: one is BullShit, the other is open to change... ;P Both sound like bullshit the way you just described them. Its now how i described it... its about learning the method... stop wasting your time posting in this thread with ignorant comments... just go study TA for yourself and then come to this thread and share your views with lucif. Stop fucking criticizing without even taking your time to learn... EDIT: if you only had the slightest crave to learn, at least you could have read in the triangle description that the descending triangle can break up too... I never stated TA was bullshit, in fact I enjoy perusing through much of it. And it is about how you described it because that is what my comment was directed at. "hmm I think this will definitely go down.... wait.... no it's going to go up!" What's stopping you from reaching another "confirmation point", "wait.... no it's going to go down!" Sounds like a load of bullshit to me. Just because it's open to change doesn't prove anything if your analysis only accounts for what happens after the fact. And what you're saying is that the descending triangle can break up too? So it can go either up or down right? No way.... Also, arepo is not your typical bull, he is also a technical analyst so your comment there was off the mark as well. Perhaps you're the ignorant one. If this is I of (C) then this is a descending triangle 4 of I of (C), which will make it to a II of (C) that will get to $150 or something like that (61% fibo retrace from $166 as of now. Would be lower, the lower I goes). What every bull seems to want is for the price to go to $150 without completing the primery trend rules that is 5 waves in favor of trend and 3 contrary of trend. If we had a bullish market until $266, then right now we are on primary down... doesnt matter how deflationary and how high bitcoin will go, it definetly is in a downtrend for now. And if that is the case then there should be 5 waves down now, we only have 4 since the $166 top of (B). if we have 5 waves down to $100 and then retrace to $150 then have another 5 waves down to maybe $80 or $60, then have another wave up to $120 then another wave to $32 then we have a text book complete correction and then we can go for the $3million or whatever price you think bitcoin should have. The "i know TA, you are the ignorant one" comment is a recursive one... learn to play it well... |
|
|
|
Stop it with the triangles already, if a method does fail multiple times it does not make sense to use it again till it works.
Its not the theory which fails, its the application. Triangles need to be redrawn how many times necessary until they make the last form, which should show the characteristics of the breakout. yes, but how many times are necessary? the technique you just described is exactly what many TA-naysayers hate -- constant re-drawing of arbitrary lines that wait for a confirmation to be validated after-the-fact. these methods are not predictive and are of little use. --arepo Oh yeah? How about your approach??? Is it more "functional"? "Fuck scientific observation of proving points of view... my gut always gets the right answers, because im just a bull and this will never go down." How different is that from... "hmm i think this definetly will go down... hhmm confirmation point for a trend change is $xx... oh $xx reached, this will go up!" EDIT: one is BullShit, the other is open to change... ;P Both sound like bullshit the way you just described them. Its now how i described it... its about learning the method... stop wasting your time posting in this thread with ignorant comments... just go study TA for yourself and then come to this thread and share your views with lucif. Stop fucking criticizing without even taking your time to learn... EDIT: if you only had the slightest crave to learn, at least you could have read in the triangle description that the descending triangle can break up too... |
|
|
|
Stop it with the triangles already, if a method does fail multiple times it does not make sense to use it again till it works.
Its not the theory which fails, its the application. Triangles need to be redrawn how many times necessary until they make the last form, which should show the characteristics of the breakout. yes, but how many times are necessary? the technique you just described is exactly what many TA-naysayers hate -- constant re-drawing of arbitrary lines that wait for a confirmation to be validated after-the-fact. these methods are not predictive and are of little use. --arepo Hallelujah, at last someone with some rationality left in this thread! this thread is not for your rational pleasure... fuck off... make your own thread. The same goes for smoothie... at leas arepo made his own thread. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
