[charts] Completely different TA than ANY other btc reversal in history

[TERA]

Analyze the TA in the follow charts of bear market recoveries, particularly the Stochastic RSI, the depth of the trading range, and the amount of time spent consolidating before breakout. These are all logarithmic charts to help emphasize and compare the depth of trading ranges.











Now look at the CURRENT recovery. Again pay attention to the Stochastic RSI.



The current recovery is completely unlike any other btc recovery in history.

1. The stochastic RSI was never down and is on the moon instead, appearing to give a SELL signal rather than a buy signal. In every other recovery, stochastic RSI is very low and then works its way upwards into the breakout.
2. It has a 55% trading range when every other recovery has a 20% trading range.
3. There is this hammer candle with a complete abandonment of the previous lows in 400-550. Every other recovery has gone down to retest the lows.
4. It has spent 2 days trading before breakout when every other recovery  has spent at least a week.

Thoughts?

[1713468591]

1713468591

[1713468591]

1713468591

[windjc]

My thoughts are these. Crazy news drove us down to retest lows. There were A LOT of shorts (historically unprecendented) driving those lows. There was 6 weekly red candles in a row. We were incredibly oversold in the immediate short term. We are now snapping back.

I think we will make a more historically normal bottom in the next 1-2 months that will be more technically satisfying for you.

[Miz4r]

The current recovery is completely unlike any other btc recovery in history.

1. The stochastic RSI was never down and is on the moon instead, appearing to give a SELL signal rather than a buy signal. In every other recovery, stochastic RSI is very low and then works its way upwards into the breakout.
2. It has a 55% trading range when every other recovery has a 20% trading range. There is this hammer candle with a complete abandonment of the previous lows in 400-550. Every other recovery has gone down to retest the lows.
3. It has spent 2 days trading before breakout when every other recovery  has spent at least a week.

Thoughts?

Perhaps the entire MtGox fiasco has distorted the charts and the usual indicators? It is a rather unique situation we're in right now, kinda like the Silk Road crash and its recovery.

[FeedbackLoop]

This time it's different!





(sorry, someone had to say it. )

[MatTheCat]

Thoughts?

Very interesting observation indeed. I really need to get reading through my TA 101 text book more so that I can noticed these things for myself.

The conclusion that I would come to right away is that is not behaving so much like a natural bear market bottom, but yet another spike down on a long running bear trend. We are currently all out of steam, at a yet lower maxed out price range than the previous one, which was high $600s, lower $700s. We are now high $500s, with a possible sneak up to lower $600 ranges. Perhaps all us amateur Tech Analysts setting out our recovery retracement buy-ins for a text book 66% correction, are going to get our asses kicked when we wake up one day to see all our low $500 and high $400 buy ins triggered, with Bitcoin bouncing around in a panic like craze in the $300 range. I will be honest, at this point in time, I really don't feel that this is on the cards but on the otherhand. For first time in a long time, I am beginning to feel positive on Bitcoin (pending correction notwithstanding) but this bottom has worked out a little bit too much by the book on the face of things.

Perhaps what the indicators belie, is the fact that this has been an artificially forced bottom, as opposed to a more organic market bottom, with the logical conclusion being that there is still more to come?

This is merely a theory and not something I firmly believe in. I will state this as I have had a track record recently of my irrational but firm beliefs about Bitcoin actually coming to fruition (give or take the odd $8.66). I trust I will know soon enough which way the wind is going to end up blowing.

Edit: Same thing can be said with the 1D MACD. On all previous trend reversals, MACD was trending down and infact deeply depressed. On this occasion, MACD was actually trending up prior to 2-3 days of mass sell off and recovery. Conclusion. This could well have been a mere flash crash. Not a trend reversal. Well spotted! If this turns out to be the case, so many people are going to totally fkn burned. Everyone is totally convinced that that was the bottom....even me!

[TERA]

You can theorize that 400 gox crash was either (A) a final capitulation or (B) a flashcrash like silk road.  In either case, there is a problem. In case A, the technicals are invalid, and in case B, a true capitulation has not occured.

[MatTheCat]

Back to looking at this old chessnut it is then, with the two blatant overshoots of the underlying support being flash crashes being attributed to

a) BTC-e/Bitfinex Sell-Off to $100 as a result of exchange being hacked
b) Gox panic.

[Brassguy]

You can theorize that 400 gox crash was either (A) a final capitulation or (B) a flashcrash like silk road.  In either case, there is a problem. In case A, the technicals are invalid, and in case B, a true capitulation has not occured.

While I don't want this to be the case.... (B) feels right to me.... true capitulation hasn't occurred...

[phoenix1]

My gut says the same ... whilst it was an awesome trading opportunity for those that grabbed it, it does not feel right to me. SR was a flash crash in a market that was already on the way up. And it was clearly a PR coup ... 'BTC drug site busted' - it read good for everyone (except SR users!). My instincts tell that whilst GOX leaving is great, the true PR fallout is worse in the short/medium term (a few weeks, possibly longer) as until we know the full story there is a big question mark over exchanges for anyone who is new to BTC. Old-timers may brush it off non-chalantly, but newbies will be more cautious. And now we see the politicos start to weigh in. Is this 'the other shoe' ? IDK ...

I agree with buy the rumour, sell the fact (or the reverse in this case), and that accounts for what we have seen in terms off the price action, but there is still so much we don't know and the potential for Gox to to create more waves from beyond the grave when they are eventually forced to make an announcement.
Until then, it really feels like a coin toss, and that this relief and euphoria, though justified in many ways (Gox had to go), may be premature. It's like a Gox is dead party and there may be a hangover when people realise there are still shockwaves rippling through the system.

No doubt, in the long things will change for the better in many way re implementation of protocol features to prevent such a debacle ever happening again, and probably more people will be drawn in to help with this effort, to work on things that are, as I understand it, already built in, just not implemented.

I know I have not mentioned TA, just speaking from my gut. I am neither scared nor euphoric. My senses are just telling me that something still ain't right. So for now I am waiting patiently and waiting for the fat boy to sing ...

And FWIW, I feel for all of you that have lost coins and cash in this debacle

Just my 2c .... or maybe 4 ... it was a bit long ...

[MatTheCat]

My gut says the same ... whilst it was an awesome trading opportunity for those that grabbed it, it does not feel right to me. SR was a flash crash in a market that was already on the way up. And it was clearly a PR coup ... 'BTC drug site busted' - it read good for everyone (except SR users!). My instincts tell that whilst GOX leaving is great, the true PR fallout is worse in the short/medium term (a few weeks, possibly longer) as until we know the full story there is a big question mark over exchanges for anyone who is new to BTC. Old-timers may brush it off non-chalantly, but newbies will be more cautious. And now we see the politicos start to weigh in. Is this 'the other shoe' ? IDK ...

Just got a freaked out Email from my mother (she knows I have a lot in 'Bitcoin') linking to some falsehood ridden scaremongering article about "the largest and most important Bitcoin exchange going down and stealing everyones money", about how Bitcoin is "financial tyranny and a Ponzi scheme".

[Carra23]

I think we will make a more historically normal bottom in the next 1-2 months that will be more technically satisfying for you.

My thoughts too. The majority sentiment here is that the much awaited correction is over and can rise again. But I anticipate some small, sputtering rises before another leg down.

You can theorize that 400 gox crash was either (A) a final capitulation or (B) a flashcrash like silk road.  In either case, there is a problem. In case A, the technicals are invalid, and in case B, a true capitulation has not occured.

I felt the SR flashcrash was in a market which had stayed stable for a long time and was starting to move up.

[Tzupy]

This was not a true 'reversal', the market still has to go through 2 / 3 of wave C until it will hit the very bottom and then recover.
How long it will take, it depends on volume. With low volume, it could take over 6 months, with high volume (2 big crashes) it would still take 2 months IMO.

[oda.krell]

Analyze the TA in the follow charts of bear market recoveries, particularly the Stochastic RSI, the depth of the trading range, and the amount of time spent consolidating before breakout. These are all logarithmic charts to help emphasize and compare the depth of trading ranges.

[...]

Thoughts?

Good analysis, as always, TERA. Glad to have you on board here.

One thing: I'd be careful to place too much trust on *daily* StochRSI. It moves fast by design, and on the daily time frame it can be a useful trading tool for individual buy/sell decisions, but to judge the likelihood of a longer-term reversal, I believe it is preferable to look at it on a weekly scale:



In which case, we see that your main point stands: We're nowhere near the oversold state we were in in June/July, timewise. That, among other things, makes me rather skeptical this bear market is over yet... even though I'm also skeptical we'll probe new lows soon -- more like a continued, reluctant decline, is what I could see in the coming month.

[ErisDiscordia]

Perhaps what the indicators belie, is the fact that this has been an artificially forced bottom, as opposed to a more organic market bottom, with the logical conclusion being that there is still more to come?

Maybe it wasn't an artificially forced bottom, but an artificially delayed capitulation?

I have no idea how that fits within TERAs TA, but consider this: all this time while the Gox issue was hanging over the BTC economy like a huge boulder ready to crash right into it and drag it down the market didn't feel like making an "organic bottom" with a capitulation in accord with the preceding ones. It was holding its breath, so to say. I feel like without the Gox fiasco we would have already tested and re-tested these lows a week or so earlier, in a manner more resembling the previous bottoms and meanwhile we'd be about where we are now - the sort of consolidation seen after a decisive move up from the bottom. We just waited for a longer time than would be natural, then quickly went through the motion in a sort of relief-driven "Alright, finally we have some closure, let's get this over with" and that might be while the whole thing looks off.

Knowing next to nothing about TA I base this on my own flaky notions I hold about markets, psychology and Bitcoin.

[eboard10]

This was not a true 'reversal', the market still has to go through 2 / 3 of wave C until it will hit the very bottom and then recover.
How long it will take, it depends on volume. With low volume, it could take over 6 months, with high volume (2 big crashes) it would still take 2 months IMO.

Agree, assuming that wave C is at least as large as wave A then it's quite possible that we will revisit sub-$300 levels before the recovery. Scary!

[segeln]

Perhaps the entire MtGox fiasco has distorted the charts and the usual indicators? It is a rather unique situation we're in right now, kinda like the Silk Road crash and its recovery.

these are my thoughts as well

[chesthing]

Agree, assuming that wave C is at least as large as wave A then it's quite possible that we will revisit sub-$300 levels before the recovery. Scary! Awesome!

[porcupine87]

TA is not everything. High RSI suggest to sell and low RSI suggest to buy. So let's see:

[checkers6676]

TA is not everything. High RSI suggest to sell and low RSI suggest to buy. So let's see:

seems like if you did the opposite of those indicators, you'd have done pretty damn good

[oda.krell]

TA is not everything. High RSI suggest to sell and low RSI suggest to buy. So let's see:

You're a regular comedian, aren't you. The only thing you proved by your post is that you know little to nothing about TA.*



*because I'm afraid you'll ask: because that's not how identifying overbought/oversold conditions, or in general, TA, works. You don't look at a single indicator and say "Now I'll buy". So your chart is completely meaningless, like posting a weather forecast of today saying "chance of rain 60%", and then gloating "but it actually *didn't* rain". It is based (a) on a naive idea of how technical analysis works, and (b) on the equally wrong assumption that for TA to be profitable on average it needs to be "infallible", which is not how any probabilistic models works.

[seleme]

TA is not everything. High RSI suggest to sell and low RSI suggest to buy. So let's see:

You're a regular comedian, aren't you. The only thing you proved by your post is that you know little to nothing about TA.*



*because I'm afraid you'll ask: because that's not how identifying overbought/oversold conditions, or in general, TA, works. You don't look at a single indicator and say "Now I'll buy". So your chart is completely meaningless, like posting a weather forecast of today saying "chance of rain 60%", and then gloating "but it actually *didn't* rain". It is based (a) on a naive idea of how technical analysis works, and (b) on the equally wrong assumption that for TA to be profitable on average it needs to be "infallible", which is not how any probabilistic models works.

If you read the OP it is RSI that is painted in red and noted as particulary and made the main argument of it. SO if anyone is comedian here, it's you.

[oda.krell]

TA is not everything. High RSI suggest to sell and low RSI suggest to buy. So let's see:

You're a regular comedian, aren't you. The only thing you proved by your post is that you know little to nothing about TA.*



*because I'm afraid you'll ask: because that's not how identifying overbought/oversold conditions, or in general, TA, works. You don't look at a single indicator and say "Now I'll buy". So your chart is completely meaningless, like posting a weather forecast of today saying "chance of rain 60%", and then gloating "but it actually *didn't* rain". It is based (a) on a naive idea of how technical analysis works, and (b) on the equally wrong assumption that for TA to be profitable on average it needs to be "infallible", which is not how any probabilistic models works.

If you read the OP it is RSI that is painted in red and noted as particulary and made the main argument of it. SO if anyone is comedian here, it's you.

You're not even trying with that troll post.

Let's look at TERA's original post. He said *nothing* about buying or selling based on StochRSI. He made a very valid point instead:

The current recovery is completely unlike any other btc recovery in history.

1. The stochastic RSI was never down and is on the moon instead, appearing to give a SELL signal rather than a buy signal. In every other recovery, stochastic RSI is very low and then works its way upwards into the breakout.
2. It has a 55% trading range when every other recovery has a 20% trading range.
3. There is this hammer candle with a complete abandonment of the previous lows in 400-550. Every other recovery has gone down to retest the lows.
4. It has spent 2 days trading before breakout when every other recovery  has spent at least a week.

1) RSI is only a part of the argument

2) He never used it as a direct buy/sell signal: he is arguing instead about the likelihood of a lasting recovery. Not the same thing, and I'm sorry if you fail to understand that

3) Why am I even arguing with you, your whole post was just an attempt to get a reaction out of me, I'm sure.

[phoenix1]

Personally I greatly appreciate the amount of time and effort the like of TERA and oda.krell, amongst many other TA followers, put into their posts, despite the constant mockery ... 

[porcupine87]

Analyze the TA in the follow charts of bear market recoveries, particularly the Stochastic RSI, the depth of the trading range, and the amount of time spent consolidating before breakout. These are all logarithmic charts to help emphasize and compare the depth of trading ranges.
The current recovery is completely unlike any other btc recovery in history.

1. The stochastic RSI was never down and is on the moon instead, appearing to give a SELL signal rather than a buy signal. In every other recovery, stochastic RSI is very low and then works its way upwards into the breakout.
2. It has a 55% trading range when every other recovery has a 20% trading range.
3. There is this hammer candle with a complete abandonment of the previous lows in 400-550. Every other recovery has gone down to retest the lows.
4. It has spent 2 days trading before breakout when every other recovery  has spent at least a week.

Thoughts?

TA is not everything. High RSI suggest to sell and low RSI suggest to buy. So let's see:

You're a regular comedian, aren't you. The only thing you proved by your post is that you know little to nothing about TA.*



*because I'm afraid you'll ask: because that's not how identifying overbought/oversold conditions, or in general, TA, works. You don't look at a single indicator and say "Now I'll buy". So your chart is completely meaningless, like posting a weather forecast of today saying "chance of rain 60%", and then gloating "but it actually *didn't* rain". It is based (a) on a naive idea of how technical analysis works, and (b) on the equally wrong assumption that for TA to be profitable on average it needs to be "infallible", which is not how any probabilistic models works.

I am not the biggest fan of TA, but I start to like it. If you look closely, you see, that the signal "high RSI -> sell" was right a few times. But the assumption made by TERA is - as far as I understand him - that the RSI is now high so the price should go down.
In my opinion there is maybe a higher probability because of that indicator , but it could also go up.

News don't care about the previous prices, but influence the price!

[oda.krell]

Analyze the TA in the follow charts of bear market recoveries, particularly the Stochastic RSI, the depth of the trading range, and the amount of time spent consolidating before breakout. These are all logarithmic charts to help emphasize and compare the depth of trading ranges.
The current recovery is completely unlike any other btc recovery in history.

1. The stochastic RSI was never down and is on the moon instead, appearing to give a SELL signal rather than a buy signal. In every other recovery, stochastic RSI is very low and then works its way upwards into the breakout.
2. It has a 55% trading range when every other recovery has a 20% trading range.
3. There is this hammer candle with a complete abandonment of the previous lows in 400-550. Every other recovery has gone down to retest the lows.
4. It has spent 2 days trading before breakout when every other recovery  has spent at least a week.

Thoughts?

TA is not everything. High RSI suggest to sell and low RSI suggest to buy. So let's see:

You're a regular comedian, aren't you. The only thing you proved by your post is that you know little to nothing about TA.*



*because I'm afraid you'll ask: because that's not how identifying overbought/oversold conditions, or in general, TA, works. You don't look at a single indicator and say "Now I'll buy". So your chart is completely meaningless, like posting a weather forecast of today saying "chance of rain 60%", and then gloating "but it actually *didn't* rain". It is based (a) on a naive idea of how technical analysis works, and (b) on the equally wrong assumption that for TA to be profitable on average it needs to be "infallible", which is not how any probabilistic models works.

I am not the biggest fan of TA, but I start to like it. If you look closely, you see, that the signal "high RSI -> sell" was right a few times. But the assumption made by TERA is - as far as I understand him - that the RSI is now high so the price should go down.
In my opinion there is maybe a higher probability because of that indicator , but it could also go up.

News don't care about the previous prices, but influence the price!

I think OP's point was even "weaker" than that... (please correct me TERA) ... his point was that *reversal* situations previously looked very different than the situation now, so caution is advised. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to say "StochRSI is too high, sell it all now" :D

[HairyMaclairy]

Until we bust through say $620 convincingly and stay there we are still in a sharp decline.

This Gox business is such a mess it will take several years at least to fully resolve.  And it will bring a taint to  bitcoin the whole time.  We will need pretty powerful good news to balance that out and we don't have it yet.

[Miz4r]

Until we bust through say $620 convincingly and stay there we are still in a sharp decline.

This Gox business is such a mess it will take several years at least to fully resolve.  And it will bring a taint to  bitcoin the whole time.  We will need pretty powerful good news to balance that out and we don't have it yet.

Several years? I seriously doubt it, next year there will be big professional exchanges which will make the MtGox era we're leaving behind us now seem like a kindergarten.

[seleme]

Several years? 

[HairyMaclairy]

Several years?  

If investors get paid out before Feb 2016, I'll be surprised.

As surprised as I was when I woke and saw my alarm failed to wake me when the price broke 620.

[kkaspar]

I think that people here should actually start making statistics on how often will their TA speculations come true. Looking at the speculations here, it seems more that people are drawing new lines in graphs to justify their gambling habits. It doesn't seem like people get it right much more then 50% of a time, meaning it's similar to flipping a coin. It seems like people first hope for one outcome and then they will start to look for ways to rationalize that hope.
I think that the problem lies in the nature of the market. When most of the market power of an product with an highly speculative value, is heavily concentrated, then presumptions that the market will follow traditional trends, will only allow better manipulation. It's easier to see what everyone will think that will happen, and when you control most of the wealth, then you can play exactly the opposite and win.
TA suits better to more stable markets of products with more intrinsic value and where the power over market isn't that much concentrated.

[oda.krell]

I think that people here should actually start making statistics on how often will their TA speculations come true. Looking at the speculations here, it seems more that people are drawing new lines in graphs to justify their gambling habits. It doesn't seem like people get it right much more then 50% of a time, meaning it's similar to flipping a coin. It seems like people first hope for one outcome and then they will start to look for ways to rationalize that hope.
I think that the problem lies in the nature of the market. When most of the market power of an product with an highly speculative value, is heavily concentrated, then presumptions that the market will follow traditional trends, will only allow better manipulation. It's easier to see what everyone will think that will happen, and when you control most of the wealth, then you can play exactly the opposite and win.
TA suits better to more stable markets of products with more intrinsic value and where the power over market isn't that much concentrated.

Or, you know, they could track their overall trade profits and see if they are consistently in the positive, and whether their system to keep the negative under control works. But sorry, didn't want to disturb your soapboxing with, you know, reality.

[kkaspar]

I think that people here should actually start making statistics on how often will their TA speculations come true. Looking at the speculations here, it seems more that people are drawing new lines in graphs to justify their gambling habits. It doesn't seem like people get it right much more then 50% of a time, meaning it's similar to flipping a coin. It seems like people first hope for one outcome and then they will start to look for ways to rationalize that hope.
I think that the problem lies in the nature of the market. When most of the market power of an product with an highly speculative value, is heavily concentrated, then presumptions that the market will follow traditional trends, will only allow better manipulation. It's easier to see what everyone will think that will happen, and when you control most of the wealth, then you can play exactly the opposite and win.
TA suits better to more stable markets of products with more intrinsic value and where the power over market isn't that much concentrated.

Or, you know, they could track their overall trade profits and see if they are consistently in the positive, and whether their system to keep the negative under control works. But sorry, didn't want to disturb your soapboxing with, you know, reality.

If one of the "line drawers" here is actually making a trade profit and increasing their amount in BTC, then posting the graphs here must be purely for manipulation.
You can point out someone who is making steady stream of correct TA speculations here.

[oda.krell]

I think that people here should actually start making statistics on how often will their TA speculations come true. Looking at the speculations here, it seems more that people are drawing new lines in graphs to justify their gambling habits. It doesn't seem like people get it right much more then 50% of a time, meaning it's similar to flipping a coin. It seems like people first hope for one outcome and then they will start to look for ways to rationalize that hope.
I think that the problem lies in the nature of the market. When most of the market power of an product with an highly speculative value, is heavily concentrated, then presumptions that the market will follow traditional trends, will only allow better manipulation. It's easier to see what everyone will think that will happen, and when you control most of the wealth, then you can play exactly the opposite and win.
TA suits better to more stable markets of products with more intrinsic value and where the power over market isn't that much concentrated.

Or, you know, they could track their overall trade profits and see if they are consistently in the positive, and whether their system to keep the negative under control works. But sorry, didn't want to disturb your soapboxing with, you know, reality.

If one of the "line drawers" here is actually making a trade profit and increasing their amount in BTC, then posting the graphs here must be purely for manipulation.
You can point out someone who is making steady stream of correct TA speculations here.

You really don't get what's the point of TA (or any methodological trading system), do you. I *am* on of those line drawers (as you call it) that post here, make a total profit, *and* I am wrong pretty often. The goal is not to be right all the time, the goal is to be right, on a weighted average, more often than you are wrong, and to have  system for risk control in place. And re: manipulation -- I can only speak for myself, but I don't really believe I have enough of an impact for that. But I do like to share my thoughts because of the satisfaction I get when I'm right. And you can now respond of course: "so you're not getting much satisfaction, huh?" :D

[kkaspar]

I think that people here should actually start making statistics on how often will their TA speculations come true. Looking at the speculations here, it seems more that people are drawing new lines in graphs to justify their gambling habits. It doesn't seem like people get it right much more then 50% of a time, meaning it's similar to flipping a coin. It seems like people first hope for one outcome and then they will start to look for ways to rationalize that hope.
I think that the problem lies in the nature of the market. When most of the market power of an product with an highly speculative value, is heavily concentrated, then presumptions that the market will follow traditional trends, will only allow better manipulation. It's easier to see what everyone will think that will happen, and when you control most of the wealth, then you can play exactly the opposite and win.
TA suits better to more stable markets of products with more intrinsic value and where the power over market isn't that much concentrated.

Or, you know, they could track their overall trade profits and see if they are consistently in the positive, and whether their system to keep the negative under control works. But sorry, didn't want to disturb your soapboxing with, you know, reality.

If one of the "line drawers" here is actually making a trade profit and increasing their amount in BTC, then posting the graphs here must be purely for manipulation.
You can point out someone who is making steady stream of correct TA speculations here.

You really don't get what's the point of TA (or any methodological trading system), do you. I *am* on of those line drawers (as you call it) that post here, make a total profit, *and* I am wrong pretty often. The goal is not to be right all the time, the goal is to be right, on a weighted average, more often than you are wrong, and to have  system for risk control in place. And re: manipulation -- I can only speak for myself, but I don't really believe I have enough of an impact for that. But I do like to share my thoughts because of the satisfaction I get when I'm right. And you can now respond of course: "so you're not getting much satisfaction, huh?"

Actually I haven't seen you posting many graphs with drawings of little lines on them. You are the one who mostly tends to snap at people for different kinds of reasons.
Anyway, I'm a simple man who enjoys simple things like the empirical truth. You can say that the line drawers are actually making money based on their posted speculations, but sadly I rarely experience a moment where I see that someone was correct. So, to me it's either they are actually losing in BTC or they are doing the opposite that they are posting.

[segeln]

http://www.godmode-trader.de/analyse/bitcoins-totgesagte-leben-laenger,3679751

http://www.godmode-trader.de/analyse/schockwelle-erfasst-bitcoin-boersen-2,3673649
http://www.godmode-trader.de/analyse/bitcoins-die-blase-platzt-oder-doch-nicht,3663494
http://www.godmode-trader.de/analyse/bitcoins-zukunftswaehrung-oder-jahrhundertblase,3294895

[oda.krell]

Actually I haven't seen you posting many graphs with drawings of little lines on them. You are the one who mostly tends to snap at people for different kinds of reasons.
Anyway, I'm a simple man who enjoys simple things like the empirical truth. You can say that the line drawers are actually making money based on their posted speculations, but sadly I rarely experience a moment where I see that someone was correct. So, to me it's either they are actually losing in BTC or they are doing the opposite that they are posting.

I like that definition of my forum persona. ^__^

Anyway. Keep dismissing results backed by sufficient evidence based on your own lack of information, insufficient experience, and sheer stubbornness. As long as you don't sell after all in a moment of panic, you should be fine.

[dyland]

Hi:


I'm a total neophyte to the world of TA, so I am learning as I go...

I just want to say that I appreciate these analyses; I think they augment my understanding of the markets at the best of times, and at the worst of times, at least give my understanding a finer grain.

I try to base my decisions on a number of indicators, including them, but it goes without saying that it is always, always, a gamble. Lately, I had some luck by using the Chinese market as a barometer and then reading as much as I can in news, on forums, and then talking to people that don't know about it (their reaction helps me assess where the citizenry is at on a really rough and ready basis); also I really try to look inward and think about how I am feeling about Bitcoin and assessing why I got into it in the first place--in that regard, I'm attempting to use myself as an 'average' investor, and then step outside to see what 'I' would do, and then throwing my acting self into an advantageous position ahead of 'me'.

Sorry if all of the above sounds flaky, naive, or 'mmmhm...ok', but hoping to contribute in a meaningful way.

  

[kkaspar]

Actually I haven't seen you posting many graphs with drawings of little lines on them. You are the one who mostly tends to snap at people for different kinds of reasons.
Anyway, I'm a simple man who enjoys simple things like the empirical truth. You can say that the line drawers are actually making money based on their posted speculations, but sadly I rarely experience a moment where I see that someone was correct. So, to me it's either they are actually losing in BTC or they are doing the opposite that they are posting.

I like that definition of my forum persona. ^__^

Anyway. Keep dismissing results backed by sufficient evidence based on your own lack of information, insufficient experience, and sheer stubbornness. As long as you don't sell after all in a moment of panic, you should be fine.

Bought around 200, sold around 1020, bought again at 613, sold at 691... now waiting to see if there will be any development with LTC if BTCChina has any momentum still left in it. So, I'm doing fine with using common sense about market growth and product demand while ignoring these "results backed by sufficient evidence".

[oda.krell]

Actually I haven't seen you posting many graphs with drawings of little lines on them. You are the one who mostly tends to snap at people for different kinds of reasons.
Anyway, I'm a simple man who enjoys simple things like the empirical truth. You can say that the line drawers are actually making money based on their posted speculations, but sadly I rarely experience a moment where I see that someone was correct. So, to me it's either they are actually losing in BTC or they are doing the opposite that they are posting.

I like that definition of my forum persona. ^__^

Anyway. Keep dismissing results backed by sufficient evidence based on your own lack of information, insufficient experience, and sheer stubbornness. As long as you don't sell after all in a moment of panic, you should be fine.

Bought around 200, sold around 1020, bought again at 613, sold at 691... now waiting to see if there will be any development with LTC if BTCChina has any momentum still left in it. So, I'm doing fine with using common sense about market growth and product demand while ignoring these "results backed by sufficient evidence".

Let me see if I get this right:

Trading on your *intuition* on market movements is fine and dandy, but when others try to formalize that intuitive approach, to, you know, do dumb things like attempt to quantify how accurate a particular method is (which is what TA is, in essence), now *that's* just silly....

You have your head firmly stuck up your arse, and it's not my job to help you pull it out. I'm done on this topic.

[ErisDiscordia]

I believe what we can observe here is an analogue of the "feel based player" vs. "math based player" in poker, as applied to day tarding.

Before you dismiss this comparison, consider that both day trading and playing poker for consistent profit can be modeled along the same lines:

You have a set amount of working capital, which  you use specifically for this activity. You are trying to grow it by taking calculated risks in the form of bets in situations, where you expect that the expected value of the bet is positive. By necessity you base this decision on incomplete information so you use various means to extract accurate information (psychology, probability, statistical analysis, experience, feeling, intuition and various algorithms). You may also try to gain an advantage by sending out incorrect information about your own holdings (manipulation). You do not expect to be right and win every single time, you just need to be right enough times in comparison to the size of your bets. This means that you working capital has to be big enough in comparison to the size of your bets and their expected value to be able to withstand the variance without depleting completely. Then, if your bets have indeed mostly positive expected value, you show consistent profits over a large enough sample size.

I think there is merit to both approaches in the games of poker and day trading. To me, TA is like trying to turn your mind inside out to examine the contents of what you think about the market. Personally I find it very stimulating to watch how other people think about the market and trading it. Similarly I enjoy people discussing their approach towards playing poker and developing strategies.

An observation I made regarding all this: the "feel based players" are more prone to dismissing the "math based players" and their approach as mumbo-jumbo, while the math based players seem to be more ready to accept the validity of both approaches. I wonder why that is? Feel based players being more susceptible to investing their ego in their approach?

Regarding the original topic: I agree that this bottom + reversal looks weird from what I can tell. But I don't feel too surprised by it, because the circumstances surrounding it were exceedingly weird themselves and quite uncharted territory. I won't be surprised if we don't break the bigger downtrend and continue trending downwards for some time longer, nor if we slowly go into CCMF mode again. I'm happy to watch how it unfolds and what you guys with your lines on charts and your feelings in your guts think about it

[kkaspar]

Actually I haven't seen you posting many graphs with drawings of little lines on them. You are the one who mostly tends to snap at people for different kinds of reasons.
Anyway, I'm a simple man who enjoys simple things like the empirical truth. You can say that the line drawers are actually making money based on their posted speculations, but sadly I rarely experience a moment where I see that someone was correct. So, to me it's either they are actually losing in BTC or they are doing the opposite that they are posting.

I like that definition of my forum persona. ^__^

Anyway. Keep dismissing results backed by sufficient evidence based on your own lack of information, insufficient experience, and sheer stubbornness. As long as you don't sell after all in a moment of panic, you should be fine.

Bought around 200, sold around 1020, bought again at 613, sold at 691... now waiting to see if there will be any development with LTC if BTCChina has any momentum still left in it. So, I'm doing fine with using common sense about market growth and product demand while ignoring these "results backed by sufficient evidence".

Let me see if I get this right:

Trading on your *intuition* on market movements is fine and dandy, but when others try to formalize that intuitive approach, to, you know, do dumb things like attempt to quantify how accurate a particular method is (which is what TA is, in essence), now *that's* just silly....

You have your head firmly stuck up your arse, and it's not my job to help you pull it out. I'm done on this topic.

It's hard to understand how one can translate "common sense about market growth and product demand" into "intuition", but people here tend to see things "their own way"
Bought at 200, because there was strong belief among people that the Chinese government is actually pro-bitcoin and sees it as a tool to fight the dollar. Sold it at 1020 when that belief broke and Chinese government declared that they don't want to see any business activity in China involving bitcoin. Bought at 613 because I recognized the ongoing pump to be a legit buy of a big amount of coins, sold when the pump faded. Haven't seen a pump like that since November.
This is what I meant by common sense.
The thing with TA is that it tries to follow trend on presumption that the previous week/month/year is similar to the present one. I think that the crypto market is too dynamic for that and you have to roll with whatever is presently thrown at you. Right now I prefer to stay in fiat because I don't see a strong enough reason for demand to grow with the market. The popular argument is that bitcoin will grow because of the infrastructure built around it. I see that most of the infrastructure hasn't been built around bitcoin, but around the general idea of independent digital currencies. For most of the services created, it's rather easy to just switch currencies, meaning they are not dependent on bitcoin, meaning that it isn't strong enough support for the bitcoin price.
Give me new successful exchanges in new untouched markets and I'll be back being bullish The will of the hodlers and the hopes of the line drawers aren't enough for me to see bitcoin as a good bet.