Bitcoin Forecast, Bitcoin Speculation & Bitcoin Technical Analysis. Up or DOWN?

[pent]

Thanks for applying Elliott wave techniques. There are really useful to anticipate trends, while many other indicators are lagging.
According to the Elliott wave rules, the count you have shown above is not allowed:

The low of wave 4 can never overlap the high of wave 5.

Thanks for correction )

yes, it is still loosing people interest
http://www.google.com/trends?q=bitcoin&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0

[1714199522]

1714199522

[1714199522]

1714199522

[1714199522]

1714199522

[1714199522]

1714199522

[netrin]

Every elliot analysis I've seen to date has had both up and down as possible interpretations. Usually these conflicting interpretations were both stated by one and the same person!

A theory needs to have a predictive value for it to have any merit. Otherwise you might just as well apply Occam's razor, and flip a coin.

BTCurious, would you mind showing an example, where I've shown 'up and down interpretations' along with the accompanying text?

As I recall, here and in other threads, I've only shown alternative wave interpretations to illustrate why the alternative is either invalid or highly unlikely. Similarly, S3052 has provided targets and stops with his various analysis on all scales. It's not random, but does require a bit of brain power and the ability to read a few sentences.

[netrin]

I believe S3052 meant:

According to the Elliott wave rules, the count you have shown above is not allowed:

The low of wave 4 can never overlap the high of wave 5 (1).

This 'fourth wave' dipped far below the first wave peak of $3.3 (22 October, II.C.4.a). So, this little dip since $3.8 within the third wave needs to see a massive extension before we can label its peak. The fourth wave hasn't begun to materialize and I doubt it ever will. Pent's chart was invalidated 30 hours before he created it.

Elliott Rule 3) Wave 4 does not overlap with the price territory of wave 1, except in the rare case of a diagonal triangle.

[S3052]

Thanks for correcting the typo.
Indeed, the low of wave 4 can never be lower than the wave 1 high.

[gewure]

so..

any suggestions what is to happen next?! price seems to move not really at all, just bounces between 3.10 and 3.25..

when looking at the recent charts i also can't really find any usefull information..

[BTCurious]

BTCurious, would you mind showing an example, where I've shown 'up and down interpretations' along with the accompanying text?

Sure. I don't really like quoting huge posts with multiple charts, but for sake of fairness, I'll do that this time.

Here goes:

You giving two different predictions in one post:

So, we didn't quite make $4, but $3.85 was pretty close and well within 3.iv (8-12 October). Notice that today 30 October, we've hit $3.2. On 23 October, 3.a peaked at $3.3. So, for all the rally bulls, either this little correction is gonna turn into an impressive third wave extension, or we've peaked at 4.c.v on our way down.

Then there's S3052 predicting both things:

Im not a big specialist in this, but since S3052 went somewhere...

simple Eliott wave theory suggests fifth wave in order to uptrend. Then will be a correction. The picture is near to a simplest Eliott wave.

Thanks for applying Elliott wave techniques. There are really useful to anticipate trends, while many other indicators are lagging.
According to the Elliott wave rules, the count you have shown above is not allowed:

The low of wave 4 can never overlap the high of wave 5.

Here is a chart that I published to our subscribers 2 days ago. It shows that there are two valid possibilities (some of them are discussed by some posters also in this thread accurately):


1) the rise from the 2.04 $ low was just a A-B-C correction in a continuing downtrend: MEANS NEW LOWS BELOW 2.04 $ to come.

2) BTCUSD develop a series of first and second waves in a bigger uptrend. MEANS THAT THE 2.04 $ LOW WAS THE TERMINAL LOW OF THE 4 MONTHS CORRECTION AND PRICES WILL NOT MAKE A NEW LOW BELOW 2.04 $.

We need to see some more price action to determine the most likely outcome.

These are two recent examples.

[pent]

1) the rise from the 2.04 $ low was just a A-B-C correction in a continuing downtrend: MEANS NEW LOWS BELOW 2.04 $ to come.

2) BTCUSD develop a series of first and second waves in a bigger uptrend. MEANS THAT THE 2.04 $ LOW WAS THE TERMINAL LOW OF THE 4 MONTHS CORRECTION AND PRICES WILL NOT MAKE A NEW LOW BELOW 2.04 $.

We need to see some more price action to determine the most likely outcome.[/color]

These are two recent examples.

These two scenarios are conditional. Conditions are descrbed in S3052 membership maillist

[netrin]

BTCurious, are you illiterate?

Just above in the same thread, I wrote "I suspect 3:iv could be appropriately close to $4. Likewise, wave c:5 could end anywhere, though our March wave 'IV' puts it in the $0.6-1.1 range." and linked to an explanation of the invalid fourth wave:

Wobber, using Elliott since 19 October, you should now be able to answer this yourself. IFF $2.05 ended the June correction II.c.5, then we are in the first wave of major (monthly/yearly) wave III. Let's call it III.i.4. Then 4 can not drop less than $3.3 and I would expect 5 to blow way up above the previous major correction 7-13 October, well into the $5's. Many hope that's true. I'm afraid the optimism is unfounded.

[BTCurious]

… Then 4 can not drop less than $3.3 and I would expect 5 to blow way up above the previous major correction 7-13 October, well into the $5's. Many hope that's true. I'm afraid the optimism is unfounded.

Yet you are still keeping the option open, as clearly marked by:

So, for all the rally bulls, either this little correction is gonna turn into an impressive third wave extension, or we've peaked at 4.c.v on our way down.

So if it crosses $4, you will instantly say "Ooh, yes, it turns out we are in III.i.4!". And then if it doesn't spout a large rally as you predicted earlier, but instead crashes after it reached 5, you will respond with "Yes, of course, we are in an inverted widening triangle!"

Suddenly the III.i.4 won't be called "unlikely" anymore, and the inverted widening triangle won't be called "rare" anymore, because "clearly, they showed up."


I'm not even calling you dishonest, it might be that you actually believe the things you say.

Yet in the end, if you are equally good at explaining any outcome, you have zero knowledge.

[Vandroiy]

BTCurious:

A prediction containing multiple scenarios is not useless, even if it does not affect expectation value. Unless you have unlimited funds, speculation is not only about determining which way to bet, but also about determining how much to risk on each "bet". Say I know variance and skew of the future price's probability distribution: I know something, I could even make a better-than-50% bet where the price goes (if the distribution is skewed), but on average, one cannot make money with it.

I won't comment on "Elliott Wave Theory"; it sounds fishy to me, but I never cared to investigate much since I use other methods for risk analysis. But I wouldn't wonder if it can predict likely scenarios, there is no general reason that would deem this impossible unless the prediction targets expectation value.

[netrin]

So if it crosses $4, you will instantly say "Ooh, yes, it turns out we are in III.i.4!". And then if it doesn't spout a large rally as you predicted earlier, but instead crashes after it reached 5, you will respond with "Yes, of course, we are in an inverted widening triangle!"

Suddenly the III.i.4 won't be called "unlikely" anymore, and the inverted widening triangle won't be called "rare" anymore, because "clearly, they showed up."

If the first sentence happened ("well above $5"), it would be truly amazing. Awesome. Spectacular. And I would be happy to have been wrong.

I've called the wave between 19-29 October, the fourth wave, of the 'b' wave since August, of the II wave since June. If I were to admit a wrong (in light of a superior) count then my a,b,c would need to be a 1,2,3 (as pent drew), which would no longer be a correction, but an impulse, no longer part of the June II wave, but a new III wave. In this particular critical case, I would have been wrong on all scales. My II.b.4.c would all of a sudden become a III.i.1.3.

It is possible, but what else can I say, I believe the alternative (1,2,3) count sucks. Only a "very unlikely massively optimistic impressive third wave extension" would invalidate my general count since August. How many adjectives do I need to demonstrate my confidence (or lack thereof) in a particular count?

Vandroiy makes the most important point. Rather than a simple BUY, SELL, HOLD, if analysis can tell you what is likely to happen, including what conditions invalidate that assertion, then its highly valuable. I've stated that if the 'fourth' wave crossed under $3.3 then it was invalid eight days before it happened, ten days before pent's graph was drawn. If you believed the 1,2,3 count, then you could have placed a stop at $3.3 (I, with a corrective count, sold at $3.8 with stops as $4.2). There is no impulse short of a "very unlikely massively optimistic impressive third wave extension" well beyond $5 that would convince me that bitcoin is already in major wave III. If that were to occur, then as I wrote (in the same thread you were busy spamming):

@netrin: but what if we were at C-5-II?

Today? Then my interpretation of the chart would be very wrong and I won't recommend listening to me further.

[pent]

Going down

[S3052]

Here a analysis as also shared in another thread, but it belongs here very well as well:

As promised, some feedback on your EW count.

Overall, I see the longterm wave count the same as you netrin: I: big rise from Aug '10 to Jun '11. II: correction Jun '11 to date, III: huge rally once II is over.

The only small issue is that the wave II correction can not be counted exactly that way.

Wave a can't be counted in 5 waves and this is why the current c wave will also not be a 5 wave move. Wave II is not a simple a-b-c zigzag, but rather a more complex correction, i.e. a "double three".

[mobodick]

Here a analysis as also shared in another thread, but it belongs here very well as well:

Why are there lengths notated and how do they come into play?

[pent]

3.000 support wall is being tested

[netrin]

""Why are there lengths notated and how do they come into play?""

They don't. I was asked about Fibonacci ratios and I used the lines to demonstrate my inability to find any.

Frankly, I am more than a little skeptical of Fibonacci. One feature of the Fibonacci (or Golden) ratio (by definition) is that y/x = 1 + x/y. Which essentially says that 162% is the same as 62% and 81% is the same (inverse) of 124% and one is nearly guaranteed to hit some ratio derived from a Fibonacci ratio. Having said that, third and fifth waves do vaguely tend to extend 2/3 and 3/2 (give or take a huge error).

[mobodick]

""Why are there lengths notated and how do they come into play?""

They don't. I was asked about Fibonacci ratios and I used the lines to demonstrate my inability to find any.

Aah, i see.

[codymanix]

You guys keep talking about elliot waves as if they would be a physical law or force of nature dictating the bitcoin market.
Instead, EW are just a theoretical model to explain stock prices, which be may be applicable to some extend in some situations or not.

The bitcoin market is influenced by much more than this. Some big news about bitcoin or someone selling or buying a large pile of bitcoins will manipulate the price as well.

But since there is no other information at present and nobody can really tell where the course is going, people are clutching at straws..

[MoonShadow]

You guys keep talking about elliot waver as if they would be a physical law or nature force dictating the bitcoin market.
Instead, EW are just a theoretical model to explain stock prices,

Actually, EW doesn't explain anything.  It's just a pattern recongnition algo, really.  It's us humans that try to provide the explaining.

[S3052]

this is correct.
Elliott Wave analysis is an art, not a robotic model.

And this is why some people are successful using it for price forecasts and trading and some aren't .

Just like many people play tennis and not all are in the top 10.