EW learning/counting topic

[sandiman]

Hi all forum member,

This topic will be dedicated to post your EW counts that will be open to be criticized by any other forum member (while respecting each other, I mean here constructive criticism), thus allowing us to forecast the market as accurate as possible keeping in mind only wave count that have been validated or at least not unvalidated.

So here I go, as a total newbie :




As you can see I have two target with e and c that are between a 0.50 and 0.618 retracement of the previous wave (I have not a clue of what it is, but let's call it (1)). As you can see, two choice, wether a=c and e=c0,618 is the good target and we go at a retracement of around 0,5 of the (1) wave, weither we go for C around the 0.618 retracement point. if my waves counting is not false, we should also consider the 4th waves of one lesser degree giving more credit the the 0,5 retracement option. Finally, I could be totally wrong and this chart meaningless (this option has the biggest probability to happen!!!)

[chessnut]

A painfully good start to an EW discussion 

[sandiman]

A painfully good start to an EW discussion 

You don't say, I did not even enjoy the luck of the beginner

So here is another count (helping me with your count btw chessnut) :



If this reveals to be correct, and that 3rd wave was the one extended, target is at the cross between upper channel and Fibo multiples (around 5050).

How do you guys do when counting on both USD chart and CNY chart, since the wave are the same (at least in the close picture)??

[RyNinDaCleM]

Good to see some counts coming out!
What you should do is get a bearing on the big picture. Start with daily or even weekly. Then, when something looks good and holds the rules, then move to 4hr. Make sure it still looks good and everything still counts. Move to smaller time frames as you confirm everything continues to hold. If you find that an impulse you labeled on a higher time frame doesn't count out on lower tf's, you need to make adjustments.

What I already saw in your first post was a good start, right up until the e that makes a lower low. Triangles always have converging trend lines and only the top can decline, and only the bottom can rise. If both decline or rise, it is a diagonal and should be labeled with numbers. Diagonals are triangles, but happen in impulsive locations (1, 5, A and C) but are not corrective themselves so should be numbered.


BTW, you really should have made this self moderated.
Keep practicing and I'll definitely try to offer help anywhere I can. 

[chessnut]

Good to see some counts coming out!
What you should do is get a bearing on the big picture. Start with daily or even weekly. Then, when something looks good and holds the rules, then move to 4hr. Make sure it still looks good and everything still counts. Move to smaller time frames as you confirm everything continues to hold. If you find that an impulse you labeled on a higher time frame doesn't count out on lower tf's, you need to make adjustments.

What I already saw in your first post was a good start, right up until the e that makes a lower low. Triangles always have converging trend lines and only the top can decline, and only the bottom can rise. If both decline or rise, it is a diagonal and should be labeled with numbers. Diagonals are triangles, but happen in impulsive locations (1, 5, A and C) but are not corrective themselves so should be numbered.


BTW, you really should have made this self moderated.
Keep practicing and I'll definitely try to offer help anywhere I can. 

THIS.

[sandiman]

Good to see some counts coming out!
What you should do is get a bearing on the big picture. Start with daily or even weekly. Then, when something looks good and holds the rules, then move to 4hr. Make sure it still looks good and everything still counts. Move to smaller time frames as you confirm everything continues to hold. If you find that an impulse you labeled on a higher time frame doesn't count out on lower tf's, you need to make adjustments.

What I already saw in your first post was a good start, right up until the e that makes a lower low. Triangles always have converging trend lines and only the top can decline, and only the bottom can rise. If both decline or rise, it is a diagonal and should be labeled with numbers. Diagonals are triangles, but happen in impulsive locations (1, 5, A and C) but are not corrective themselves so should be numbered.


BTW, you really should have made this self moderated.
Keep practicing and I'll definitely try to offer help anywhere I can. 

Thank you a lot for all the advice, they are greatly appreciated (and probably from now on my biggest source to improve in counting).

I know I should have made it self moderated as you suggested, but I could not be bothered to moderate a topic, so i'll just ignore trolls as usual

Cheers again!!

[sandiman]

So here is what I got from the ATH :



I really have no clue if it's accurate or not. One question came to my mind about the non-overlaping rule. Does it account for the whole candlestick, or only for the body?? I am facing this issue in the count following the screenshot provided in this post.

[RyNinDaCleM]

So here is what I got from the ATH :



I really have no clue if it's accurate or not. One question came to my mind about the non-overlaping rule. Does it account for the whole candlestick, or only for the body?? I am facing this issue in the count following the screenshot provided in this post.

at no point should wave 1 and 4 overlap. Always use price extremes. Now, sometimes margin markets (BFX) will break rules from time to time because more coins can be bought/sold than users normally could on a standard market like Bitstamp. So it does make sense to cross reference with Stamp or okc spot to see if an invalidation occurred or not.


Edit:
the comment about margin markets... This applies more to lower time frames than longer tf's Daily and weekly charts should still adhere to the 3 core rules

[sandiman]

So here is what I got from the ATH :



I really have no clue if it's accurate or not. One question came to my mind about the non-overlaping rule. Does it account for the whole candlestick, or only for the body?? I am facing this issue in the count following the screenshot provided in this post.

at no point should wave 1 and 4 overlap. Always use price extremes. Now, sometimes margin markets (BFX) will break rules from time to time because more coins can be bought/sold than users normally could on a standard market like Bitstamp. So it does make sense to cross reference with Stamp or okc spot to see if an invalidation occurred or not.


Edit:
the comment about margin markets... This applies more to lower time frames than longer tf's Daily and weekly charts should still adhere to the 3 core rules

Cheers again for the advice, carefully saved in my brain !!! I remember now hearing that in the videos of elliotwaves.com, but didn't though at all to compare with other non-margin market.

So I'll show you probably my count on BTC this afternoon, but right now I am working on ETH and I really think it is a good case to study as this "crash" probably invalidated most of the count. So now what I've got is that we could just have finished a B waves?



As you can see below, all count of impulse wave have been invalidated, which makes ETH chart really interesting to learn right now. So what about that idea that we just completed a B waves ?

Another question, how would you guys count your waves on ETH chart ? against FIAT or BTC ? ETH/BTC has much more volume, but I am not sure it reflect the "psychology" of buyer toward eth, but more the price of eth following btc.

[pereira4]

I think you have to look at the fundamentals too, otherwise technical analysis is pointless.

The fact that Vitalin Buterik is panicking about people panic selling and wants exchanges to stop all trading of ETH, is very worrisome, and to me this can only mean down regardless what TA says about it.

[sandiman]

I think you have to look at the fundamentals too, otherwise technical analysis is pointless.

The fact that Vitalin Buterik is panicking about people panic selling and wants exchanges to stop all trading of ETH, is very worrisome, and to me this can only mean down regardless what TA says about it.

I can agree with you, but the point of this topic is too understand and forecast those move (even though in this case I am struggling on how to count waves on the ETH chart when yesterday it looked beautiful  )

While waiting for someone to find a count for eth that looks like it broke all the bullish rules, I wanted to ask RyNinDaCleM about his count :



While trying to count waves from around august last year, and looking also at the bearish point of view, I realise that this counting may have an issue. I was reading about volume pattern in corrective waves, and B wave should have a lower volume than A wave. What do you think of that since it is not the case at all ? You could argue that market participation has grown, but isn't this point suppose to be already included in volume pattern ? (maybe it is only included in motive waves?).

[sandiman]

So here's my count for BTC since last 1200 (I know, I should look before as well), and I couldn't really count after october cause the rule of non overlap is systematically broken for count that looks valid in this context. But i've got a little idea. Since the volume that we are seeing is considerably lower than the one at the beginning of the movement, I am tempted to think that we are in the 1st leg of a bullish trend.
Regarding the ABC waves, this count looks interesting because volume patterns are respected. Each A has higher volume that B waves, and C waves always have the more volume regarding the corrective waves (looks at the 3rd waves of the last C, highlighting the whole point here).
I would like to know what people think about this count?


Here are some count for ETH, chart that I found really interesting (and intrigating):


First of all, this chart for me is less promessing that the following one (please inverse the 3and4). the 1st of the impulsive waves are more volume and power (look at the divergences) than the third (couldn't make it third ?) which is rare (I wouldn't see why the first leg up would be extended). Moreover, if what we are now witnessing is the creation of the A waves, god damn, the C wave would broke the chart with the volume bar.


here is my favorite of the two. Now that much comment about the 5 impulsive wave except that again, the first waves has more volume/strengh that the 3rd and 5st. the corrective pattern should be a flat correction (3-3-5) in this case and it can for the two first waves be counted like it. Volume is rather equal amongst A and B waves which is not normal but not a negative sign (we should see a higher volume in B than A for a negative sign I assume). What looks as positive in this counting is that the impulse waves had more volume/strengh that the B waves, even though we went to an ATH, giving credit to the flat corrective pattern. and then, waves C, that could have started now is on a much higher volume that both A and B.

Please don't hesitate to critisize those count and add value to the topic.

[chessnut]

Imo counting the bear market is no use to us, it is a combination of some sort but very ambiguous. Not all bear markets have to finish at the extreme low in terms of EW which makes it even more difficult. I think the best we can do is use bold clues within the local bull market to determine if we are ready for the next great impulse.

[r0ach]

The original poster "Sandiman" posts non-stop trying to hype IPO scamcoins, so of course he's going to conjure some bearish BTC chart out of his ass to try and make his scamcoins go up while trying to get people to make believe scamcoins are a "hedge" against BTC price.  The halving is a fundamental, it does not show up in a chart.  If your methodology had any value, you would have been able to create a chart showing what the price is now when the price was $430.  You draw some bogus chart claiming a retracement is mandatory even if the cost of production doubles.  Sorry, but the cost of production trumps any of this bogus shit.

[sandiman]

Imo counting the bear market is no use to us, it is a combination of some sort but very ambiguous. Not all bear markets have to finish at the extreme low in terms of EW which makes it even more difficult. I think the best we can do is use bold clues within the local bull market to determine if we are ready for the next great impulse.

Understood, so that could make sense why It's hard to count on BTC right now and give more credit to RyNinDaCleM count.

The original poster "Sandiman" posts non-stop trying to hype IPO scamcoins, so of course he's going to conjure some bearish BTC chart out of his ass to try and make his scamcoins go up while trying to get people to make believe scamcoins are a "hedge" against BTC price.  The halving is a fundamental, it does not show up in a chart.  If your methodology had any value, you would have been able to create a chart showing what the price is now when the price was $430.  You draw some bogus chart claiming a retracement is mandatory even if the cost of production doubles.  Sorry, but the cost of production trumps any of this bogus shit.

EW > Halving :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.0

[RyNinDaCleM]

The original poster "Sandiman" posts non-stop trying to hype IPO scamcoins, so of course he's going to conjure some bearish BTC chart out of his ass to try and make his scamcoins go up while trying to get people to make believe scamcoins are a "hedge" against BTC price.  The halving is a fundamental, it does not show up in a chart.  If your methodology had any value, you would have been able to create a chart showing what the price is now when the price was $430.  You draw some bogus chart claiming a retracement is mandatory even if the cost of production doubles.  Sorry, but the cost of production trumps any of this bogus shit.

Fundamentals don't matter in EW because when it's something known by the entire market, it is factored in to the individuals trading. The individuals is what makes up the market, and the aggregate of the market psychology is what makes EW work. imo, the only time a fundamental can break EW is when it's something unknown at this time. Even then, it's arguable that some people know it before the rest of the market and the effect can be seen in the price sooner than info is released. EW alone isn't as much "predictive" as it is a way to find all possible outcomes using already known data. Sometimes, there are many possible outcomes so it is up to the analyst to try and figure out the probabilities of each count.

[sandiman]

Looks like counting waves can help in trading (even when the count reveals to be incorrect  , probably luck of the beginner):

[chessnut]

Looks like counting waves can help in trading (even when the count reveals to be incorrect  , probably luck of the beginner):

Its what many people dont appreciate about it. It is an excellent principle, but it is also a very real theory.

[sandiman]

Looks like counting waves can help in trading (even when the count reveals to be incorrect  , probably luck of the beginner):

Its what many people dont appreciate about it. It is an excellent principle, but it is also a very real theory.

Agree with that, we can see both of the point you mentionned in your topic  Anyway, I am still holding until I get really confident with my trading skills (few more month i think), but those result are very interesting.

[sandiman]

Finally got a count on btc which is similar to the one of masterluc (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.msg15329177#msg15329177)



Any though?

How much is waves B supposed to retrace in a flat correction ? and a zig zag ? I have got forecast for C waves (using fibo retracement, plus previous waves four of one lesser degree) depending on B retracement, but I wanted to know how much one should assume B will retrace ?

Moreover, one issue with this count is that chaneling does not work ? is this a matter or it can happen ?