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

[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