Yet another analyst :)

[arepo]

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

[siulynot]

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

[hubbabubbabaker]

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.

[arepo]

"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."

did i say this?

[bitsalame]

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!

[siulynot]

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.

[siulynot]

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...

[hubbabubbabaker]

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.

[siulynot]

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...

[smoothie]

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.

THIS ^ is known as "MOVING THE GOAL POSTS" to suit their theory.

LOL! ROFL! LAWL OMFG! 

[arepo]

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

[siulynot]

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.

[arepo]

Why would EW not be applicable here?

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.

2 things:

1 -- because external factors like supply/demand and other fundamentals do matter.

for instance, in the run-up from the last ATH to $266, many oscillators were screaming 'overbought' but we did not see a serious correction for a very long time because of an unprecedented influx of money proportional to the market cap.

2 -- you are much too sure.

price is a stochastic function. our models can never lend us so much certainty.

[lucif]

I continue to redraw triangle because I see volume do not increase. Decreasing volume goes on all way drawing triangles. So unless there is a "BOOM" in volume - triangle still here. Besides, sma200 still supporting price (green).

[bitsalame]

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.

It is not a rational pleasure, it is actually painful to see how you and all the TA evangelists are so blind about their own rational loophole.
As a psychologist it is plain obvious to see that the TA techniques are flawed by its very root: humans are programmed to see patterns, even if there are none out there. It is a bias known as apophenia.

Next, all of your reasonings are ridden with cognitive biases.
The mere naming of oneselves as "bulls" and/or "bears" undermines any attempt of being objective, as it is very basic prejudice which WILL affect your perception of anything you analyze. The mere fact that all of you have stakes in bitcoins will definitely bias your judgement, and if you think you are being objective you are just kidding yourself. It is a human impossibility.
There are tons of research on prejudice, priming and apophenia that makes any type of pattern recognition inherently unreliable.
Let alone the very star of TA: the self-fulfilled prophecies.

I will tell you a very simple list of what all of the TA enthusiasts, even the smart ones, are being a victim of:

• Negativity Bias(bears)
• Optimist Bias(bulls)
• Hindsight Bias
• Confirmation Bias
• Bias Blind Spot
• Cogntive Dissonance
• Ad-Hoc Hypothesizing
• Apophenia
• Subjective Validation
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Expectation Bias
• Dunning–Kruger Effect
• Selective Recall
• Rosy Retrospection

If you are not familiar with some or any of this, then you are the most likely candidate to be a victim of your own humanity.
Everyone who claims to be using solely TA for their financial decisions are just as self-deceiving as esoteric believers.
Good day everyone.

[arepo]

• Negativity Bias(bears)
• Optimist Bias(bulls)
• Hindsight Bias
• Confirmation Bias
• Bias Blind Spot
• Cogntive Dissonance
• Ad-Hoc Hypothesizing
• Apophenia
• Subjective Validation
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Expectation Bias
• Dunning–Kruger Effect
• Selective Recall
• Rosy Retrospection

excellent post, and excellent list. cognitive science and the deconstruction of biases has always fascinated me. have you read anything by Daniel Dennett?

pretty much any predictive science only operates when enough rigor is maintained that the effects of these biases can be controlled, and it is difficult to tell just from analysis that is posted on these forums how rigorous the practitioner's methods are.

[lebing]

• Negativity Bias(bears)
• Optimist Bias(bulls)
• Hindsight Bias
• Confirmation Bias
• Bias Blind Spot
• Cogntive Dissonance
• Ad-Hoc Hypothesizing
• Apophenia
• Subjective Validation
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Expectation Bias
• Dunning–Kruger Effect
• Selective Recall
• Rosy Retrospection

excellent post, and excellent list. cognitive science and the deconstruction of biases has always fascinated me. have you read anything by Daniel Dennett?

pretty much any predictive science only operates when enough rigor is maintained that the effects of these biases can be controlled, and it is difficult to tell just from analysis that is posted on these forums how rigorous the practitioner's methods are.

Excellent post indeed. I know that its very much a conscious exercise for me when trying to predict future price direction. You have to be extremely aware and critical of your own motivations and emotional attachments if you want to have any chance of success.

[smoothie]

I continue to redraw triangle because I see volume do not increase. Decreasing volume goes on all way drawing triangles. So unless there is a "BOOM" in volume - triangle still here. Besides, sma200 still supporting price (green).

You may want to connect your lines with the actual candle sticks.

Leaving spaces only makes it easier to "move the goal posts" to make it look the way you want it to.

[smoothie]

Let's draw more triangles to "fit" the bearish scenario.

[arepo]

no room for these bears, anyway, toot-toot

hey lucif, did you ever figure out why you were a bear during the biggest bitcoin rally ever, yet? did you make the appropriate adjustments to your methods?

also, in all seriousness, this was a meaningful question. i respect the work you do but sometimes i question you rigor.

--arepo