[edited out]
I should be more open minded by something in-between, like $35K to $40K "fair price" prior to a re-test of $25K or similar, but I simply don't buy it yet. It's what most are expecting.
I cannot really battle very much with anything that you are saying, even if I might frame some of the facts differently or describe some of the price ranges/timelines in different ways, but largely we are coming to similar conclusions that still causes me to want to highlight that many of us likely realize that we can describe most plausible theories and taking into account various dynamics that are caused when bears (for example) might run out of ammunition because they spend so much goddamned time defending $25k.. so they may well NOT have any (or enough) ammunition left to engage in any further defense, until the price moves UPpity for a while.. and so we can appreciate that those kinds of dynamics remain similar to a lot of markets that have a kind of "free market" battle while at the same time, not necessarily knowing that there could be some entities that might have some ace in the hole that they are not showing until such time that the know that it can be effectively played in order to make the less likely scenario to end up playing out.. even though that "less likely scenario" was starting to seem like it had a snowball chance in hell of happening. .and then it ends up happening.. surprise!!!!!!
Did anyone know it or was it just a coincidence that the "ace in the hole" ended up working when the other three previous "aces in the hole" that had been played at earlier points had not been effective... so in that sense, many of us know (who have been watching this space for a while) likely realize that minority scenarios can end up playing out, even if they really were minority scenarios, and that is why we do not overly hedge or bet the farm on scenarios that we might even assign abrazingly high odds - if it is even possible to come up with something like 80% odds, the 4% scenario could still end up playing out and then the 4% scenario ends up becoming the 100% scenario because it had already happened.. when we thought it was almost a done deal that the 80% scenario was going to play out.
It's also too rational for my liking and suits the masses, whereas Bitcoin's price is a lot more irrational, especially when the trend reverses.
ditto dat.
In hindsight, the 200 Week MA has only ever been useful after a parabolic blow-off top within a 4 year cycle. It's the "return to the norm" you could say. Without that, I'd argue it doesn't serve much purpose apart from telling you what 4 years-ish of DCA would achieve. Also as a reminder, it didn't serve as support on the way down, nor resistance when reclaimed, so will it really act as resistance this time around?
Could be true... even though on a personal level I am still likely (or at least tending) going to be using that frame work as a working bottom for my own framing of how I want to treat my own portfolio.. and I don't make short term trading of these kinds of indicators/perceived dynamics anyhow except maybe coming to some realization that I might need to take money out of the (not for bitcoin cash funds) to buy more BTC.. even though I cannot really specify if the exact "new point," if any in which I might want to draw new lines for potential future crashes or if there might be some other portfolio management changes that I might want to make.. but I am not necessarily opposed to discounting the 200-week moving average based on some of the considerations that you mentioned, but I doubt that I am going to throw it out in any kind of meaningful way because there is a lot more data on the 200-week moving data at this point (even in other markets/asset classes), and so yeah, maybe there might be some value to use the 260 week moving average or the 312 week moving average, and I have almost no desires to plow new paths - since a lot of my own behaviors when it comes to bitcoin and portfolio management are largely ballpark plays kind of plays (or BIG swing kinds of plays) rather than anything in which I am (or anticipate that I would be) changing my own behaviors very much based on whether I might refer to some other longer moving average as an indicator.. and especially since I had not even considered tthe 200week moving average as inviolable either.. merely because I was referring to it as a bottom, I already appreciated that it was at best maybe a 70% bottom rather than 100%.. especially once we are there.. there may well be everyone and his grandma buying at that stage, but once you are there, it does not mean that it could not be penetrated merely because it had not penetrated it so far... blah blah blah.
So one thing is if we are floating around the 100-week moving average for 6 months and then revisiting the 100 week moving average several times, then we might start to think that even that might not be violable to the downside. .and so at that point, going below the 200-week moving average might well look like a less than 20% odds when there are long term difficulties to get below the 100-week moving average.. but then when the BTC price penetrates the 100-week support and goes way below it .. it starts to approach the 200-week moving average and the odds change. .the closer we get to the 200-week moving average oin the way down then the less confidence that we should have that it will hold, even if we still consider the odds to be good that it will not get penetrated.. but surely nothing is 100%.. especially if there might even be some ways that seemingly "blackswans" could end up happening, and then why do we keep having "blackswans" every year? They must not be "as black" as we had previously perceived/speculated them to have had been?
Personally I'd say the resistance is simply $25K. It's breaking the double top structure that is currently in play with a higher high. 200 Week MA is simply noise right now imo.
Could be.
Doesn't really matter that much to me. I am going to keep referring to the 200 week moving average as a reference point until something else might seem to be better. It is really easy to find various graphs about the 200 week moving average and it is also great to see some other analyst discuss it, and PlanB had been using it too.. so even if people do not like PlanB, I like some of his uses of the 200-week moving average, even though I used to criticize him too from tome to time in his acting as if some of his claims were inevitable (or at least seeming to assign too high of probabilities to them), but yeah, maybe even if PlanB or some variation of the Stock-To-Flow would need to come out to adjust the various curves downwardly, I think it is way fucking better to be attempting to work with existing historical frameworks rather than completely throwing out old frameworks merely because they have some short term violations of them that have not exactly been accounted for.. beyond just saying that none of the squigglies on chart are going to stop violations of the squigglies (whether the violations were purposeful or coincidental and maybe just goes to show that there remains considerable weaknesses in placing 90% odds on scenarios that are ONLY 80%, if that.
Everybody has the right to be ridiculed ....even when they piss
My only criticism is that I'd get distracted while trying to concentrate on my peeing performance...
That's how I feel. It's difficult to pee/piss when you are being watched, and in the modern world, and drug tests, many of us may have had to go through situations in which there need to be some live "verification" that you are really providing the sample.. so maybe the more that you do it, the easier it gets, and some guys do not have pee-problems...
So for some of us who might have some difficulties pee/piss - ing while being scrutinized, then we just have to drink more and more and more beverages to cause ourselves to nearly have exploding bladders before we are able to pee/piss while being scruitinized.
Poll
