Elliott Wave Analysis

[netrin]

Our impulse since $2.6 after pushing past $3.14 looks to have more power left in it. While gold subwaves are impossible to count, the green count is clean. Bitcoin appears to be in the third of a fifth. We should expect another small correction and climb before a major correction back to around $3.

The top magenta price target (C) is based on the fourth wave all the way back from mid October. Similarly $3.8 represents the peak of the subsequent retracement late October.

On higher scales, I have too many counts to bother presenting any of them. I'm just not sure if bitcoin has hit the bottom yet -- if this past month or so represents a single 3-3-5 flat correction or a terribly weak reversal. The black B and C imply the former, but I'm entirely open to alternatives. A major correction reversal within the fourth wave of this month's rally (lower magenta bar $2.6-$3.14) would be a positive signal and could lead to double digit heights. A drop below $2.5 could lead to $1.

[1714917168]

1714917168

[zby]

Any updates to this?

[netrin]

The chart above is still valid.

In all honesty, it's been an ugly count going up. I don't see a better count than the one I created ten days ago. The drop (14 Dec, $3) invalidates my green count, but I don't have an alternate to replace it.

It's tempting to label the drop from (20 Dec, $4.5) through today as a green '4', but that would make '1' three waves. Green '3' would be extended since (11 Dec, $3) with the same invalidation (14 Dec, $3), but imply another rally up without first crossing below $3. I really don't know.

[zby]

At least now we have a clear triangle pattern.

[cloon]

some thoughts who rushed through my head:

elliott wave theoriy is based on self similarity, (like a fractal) if you zoom in, you'll find nearly the same forms like in large scale...
the critical point is, that you find only NEARLY the same forms.

imagine that if it would be calculable like the mandelbrot or Julia, it wuld make really good predictions.
BUT the whole self-similarity is a result of mass-psycologic of optimistic and pessimistic thinking.
the uncalculability of its self-similarity makes shortterm predictions nearly impossible.

for example: take the mandelbrot. if you dont know, how it is calculated, you will not be able to say, how it looks if you zoom in 500 times, because self similatity if it is depending on relatives of the coordinates...  (means it depens, where you zoom in)
means: you'll find every self similarity, your searching for. if you compare the right coordinates and zooms....

now look at bitcoins:
I see the point of self similatity but this system is a lot more chaotic and more uncaluculable than fractals and has much influence of the media, the forum, etc...

IMO the Elliote wave theory is an interesting prediction machanism for long and midterm, but without others indicators, oscillators, and external information its worthless...

have you had neary the same thoughts? ;-D

(sry for my terrible english)

[molecular]

have you had neary the same thoughts? ;-D

yeah, I think so, but on a wholly different timescale. It was over in 3 nanoseconds, so I didn't really catch it.

[Flappy]

I was reading that a 4th wave triangle could result in either a quick 5th wave or an elongated one.
In the first case would that also lead to a quick abc correction like the following?

Is this a valid count?
I wasn't sure where to measure the wedge.

[Flappy]

On second thought, now it's looking to me like:
5.1 ( $5.5 )
5.2 ( $4.8 )
 

[netrin]

Flappy, the count you've drawn is valid on the scale you've labeled. However, I think you'd have trouble labeling the subwaves... but so it is. If I understand what you mean by 5.i ( $5.5 ), 5.ii ( $4.8 ), then yes, you should expect much higher prices. According to your count, waves 1 and 3 are about equal, which tends to imply an extended 5.

All counts continue to look ugly to me. For example, in your wave 5, there was a peak ($4.99, 31 Dec), a double top around ($5.5, 2 Jan), before a drop to ($4.8, 2 Jan). How do you reconcile that? Either your 5.i is only three subwaves, or the fourth wave was invalid.

There's nothing wrong with your count, considering bitcoin's light trade volume. Indeed it's as good as any. It's just that you can't have huge confidence in any count unless it is also confirmed on higher and lower scales. I invite you to include sub-counts for discussion.

...

Suppose you considered ($3.5, 22 Dec) as the beginning of wave 5 rather than the middle of a wave 4 triangle. Then you'd have a valid five counts up to the new year high before a major reversal. I'm not claiming it's better than your count. My intension is only to provide healthy doubt.

[Flappy]

Either your 5.1 is only three subwaves, or the fourth wave was invalid.

Shall I scrap the 4th wave triangle and redraw as follows?

Doesn't this require a termination point for C near 3.5?

[netrin]

Thanks for the subcount. Perhaps you could alternate 1,2,3,4,5 and i,ii,iii,iv,v for the color blind but anyway...

Shall I scrap the 4th wave triangle and redraw as follows?

That's up to you. Neither count gives me warm fuzzies (none of mine either). But the sharp blue 4 looks like a motive three-waves, hits your previous fourth wave perfectly (3.iv), and the following blue wave 5 has a valid subcount.

Doesn't this require a termination point for C near 3.5?

First of all, the previous fourth wave is a suggestion, not a requirement. Secondly, it's anywhere in the entire fourth wave $3.5-$4.5, though you are correct, it tends to hit closer to the extreme.

Given your count, I'd be inclined to call the (2 Jan, $4.8 ) drop your 'a'. It fits nicely in the previous magenta fourth wave. If the correction is a zig-zag, 'c' would likely and symmetrically end within the blue fourth as well. 'a' and 'c' of a zig-zag should be roughly equal and both express five subwaves (b is three waves). Since you shouldn't ignore that $4.8 drop, I think either your 'a' is much bigger or the drop is your 'a'.



Also, I suggest you find parallel green channel lines. They can intersect the price action a bit, but an expanding impulse is not particularly informative.

[Flappy]

So what does it mean when C fails to move back into the range of the 4th wave?
My thought is that the abc correction was simply cut short by a new wave of market exuberance.

Any thoughts on whether the recent price action leading up to $6.3 is an extension of previous waves, or are we moving into new territory?  As long as it stays within the up channel I'm inclined to believe it's an extension, but I don't know how to label it.  And if it is an extension, the implication is that there will still be a correction into the 3.5-4.5 range.

After a cursory look, I'm tempted to go back and label everything as a series of corrections.  But that has no predictive value.

[S3052]

I have shared with subscribers a wave count, but I am sorry I can't share here as it is exclusive to subscribers.

[netrin]

So what does it mean when C fails to move back into the range of the 4th wave?

It does not mean much. The fourth is only a suggestion. Similarly, three wave zig-zag corrections are common, but not guaranteed.

The jump from $4.8 to $7.2 is something else entirely. I'm without internet and am missing all of this fun. My quick assessment however, is that we may see a small upward motion again, before a major downward correction. Bitcoin broke the channel yesterday and seems to be entering again. I'd expect it to soon cross below the channel over the midterm week(s).

My thought is that the abc correction was simply cut short by a new wave of market exuberance.

Maybe, but Elliott already tries to model market exuberance and despair. So trying to explain unexpected Elliott motion using the same terms is circular.

Any thoughts on whether the recent price action leading up to $6.3 is an extension of previous waves, or are we moving into new territory?

The channel I've 'drawn' using the edge of paper on chart since November cuts through the spike on 20 December (wave 3) and again 6 January (wave 5).

After a cursory look, I'm tempted to go back and label everything as a series of corrections.

Do it. Very often an alternate count looks much better after drawing or describing another idea.

It's best to have a number of alternate counts in mind along with what new information would confirm or deny any one of them. If all counts predict the same result, then you can have more confidence in the prediction even if each count is vague.

[Flappy]

I was reading that a 4th wave triangle could result in either a quick 5th wave or an elongated one.

I guess we saw an extended 5th wave.
A big distorted 5th, and a big distorted correction to match?

This could still land in range of the 4th.  (4.0 - 4.5)

[dearbesz]

 i believe that some of the predictions of the elliott waves are more
realistic in the long run, thats why i support their campaign anyway,..

[Jmild1]

i believe that some of the predictions of the elliott waves are more
realistic in the long run, thats why i support their campaign anyway,..

seeing those graph in the first page , I see that it is way realistic