Something, something, something, technical analysis

[lebing]

Well, this thread has officially gone to shit. Where is Oda?

[oda.krell]

I've been playing around with an experimental indicator in here, but I wouldn't really suggest anyone yet to make any decisions based on the output. I know I don't take it too serious yet.

I lost interest in trading the swings a bit in the past weeks... "trading fatigue", is there such a thing? That's why I didn't post in here more often. For the record though, I enjoy all the other posts in here (justanothersheep makes a lot of good points imo, for example). Also, this is one of the few threads where traders/TAers don't have to defend themselves against the accusations coming from the "pure holder" mentality constantly.

I did take smaller profits twice during the swing down since May 31st/June 1st, but went long again afterwards. Both trades were pure momentum based, so nothing that warrants an analysis post.

So perhaps the following is not a really deep or interesting answer, but: I'm still long as a default position because I'm not really worried yet about the longer perspective upwards (say, looking forward a month from now).

That general positive outlook could change of course, but as long as we stay above what I think are key support lines at $560 (1w BB, 50% fib $440 to $680), and $535 (23% fib from $1160 to $340, 3d BB), I'm okay with the situation...

I think we are simply very cautiously moving ahead, in a "2 steps forward, 1 and 1/2 steps back" rhythm, if for no other reason than that the sentiment of the 2013/2014 bear market is still lingering, and because we are still waiting for that next "fiat floodgate" to open (an ETF, a new exchange associated with names from traditional finance, or even just a new national market that suddenly develops a taste). The USMS auction might play a role too, but I think its effects are overrated.

[MaxwellsDemon]

A small clarification: 1h MACD is still positive, just the divergence went negative.
MACD is a lagging indicator, the divergence is less lagging. This term confusion happens a lot in these forums.

 Possible way to explain it to someone with physics/math background:

TA               math                     physics

price            function                 coordinates
MACD           first derivative        speed
divergence    second derivative    acceleration

Thanks for that! It actually helps.
You should write a dictionary for TA-challenged scientists like me 

[cbeast]

A small clarification: 1h MACD is still positive, just the divergence went negative.
MACD is a lagging indicator, the divergence is less lagging. This term confusion happens a lot in these forums.

 Possible way to explain it to someone with physics/math background:

TA               math                     physics               Astrology

price            function                 coordinates         Birth Chart
MACD           first derivative        speed                 Star Chart
divergence    second derivative    acceleration         Planetary Motion

FTFY

[oda.krell]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02941226

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1006275

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.19.4881

[zimmah]

A small clarification: 1h MACD is still positive, just the divergence went negative.
MACD is a lagging indicator, the divergence is less lagging. This term confusion happens a lot in these forums.

 Possible way to explain it to someone with physics/math background:

TA               math                     physics

price            function                 coordinates
MACD           first derivative        speed
divergence    second derivative    acceleration

Thanks for that! It actually helps.
You should write a dictionary for TA-challenged scientists like me  

i agree, as an engineer this makes perfect sense.

TA sometimes is easy, but some charts are very confusing.

[Wary]

To Tzupy, MaxwellsDemon, zimmah  -thanks for the appreciation. I wish I was good it TA, but I've just started learning it.
To cbeast  - special thanks. The sign of real popularity is people parodying you

[cbeast]

To Tzupy, MaxwellsDemon, zimmah  -thanks for the appreciation. I wish I was good it TA, but I've just started learning it.
To cbeast  - special thanks. The sign of real popularity is people parodying you

You made an analogy that TA is like math and physics. Math and physics make 100% accurate predictions. You imply that TA makes 100% accurate predictions. Please demonstrate your predictive science.

[Wary]

To Tzupy, MaxwellsDemon, zimmah  -thanks for the appreciation. I wish I was good it TA, but I've just started learning it.
To cbeast  - special thanks. The sign of real popularity is people parodying you

You made an analogy that TA is like math and physics. Math and physics make 100% accurate predictions. You imply that TA makes 100% accurate predictions. Please demonstrate your predictive science.

No such implications was made. The table is only about ways of processing raw data. The way we calculate MACD from price and histogram from MACD is similar to way we calculate speed from coordinates and acceleration from speed. The part of physics that deals with it is called kinematics and, being pure descriptional one, makes no predictions. To make a prediction we have to introduce idea of force. (Which would convert kinematics to dynamics. Dynamics does make predictions. To make TA a predictional science we have to introduce idea of "market forces". Which I didn't do, because it would be an analogy rather than science.

[oda.krell]

To Tzupy, MaxwellsDemon, zimmah  -thanks for the appreciation. I wish I was good it TA, but I've just started learning it.
To cbeast  - special thanks. The sign of real popularity is people parodying you

You made an analogy that TA is like math and physics. Math and physics make 100% accurate predictions. You imply that TA makes 100% accurate predictions. Please demonstrate your predictive science.

No such implications was made. The table is only about ways of processing raw data. The way we calculate MACD from price and histogram from MACD is similar to way we calculate speed from coordinates and acceleration from speed. The part of physics that deals with it is called kinematics and, being pure descriptional one, makes no predictions. To make a prediction we have to introduce idea of force. (Which would convert kinematics to dynamics. Dynamics does make predictions. To make TA a predictional science we have to introduce idea of "market forces". Which I didn't do, because it would be an analogy rather than science.

Hehehe. Nice.

One remark though: I like your table, but your original equivalence was: divergence - second derivative - acceleration. You sure about that one? I'm still trying myself to wrap my head around how to best conceptualize 'divergence' (in the TA sense), but I'm not sure if it's as straightforward as it being the second derivative.

In the paragraph above you seem to substitute 'histogram' for 'divergence', which I think is more accurate. 'Divergence' is, imo, at least another step removed from that.

[Wary]

To Tzupy, MaxwellsDemon, zimmah  -thanks for the appreciation. I wish I was good it TA, but I've just started learning it.
To cbeast  - special thanks. The sign of real popularity is people parodying you

You made an analogy that TA is like math and physics. Math and physics make 100% accurate predictions. You imply that TA makes 100% accurate predictions. Please demonstrate your predictive science.

No such implications was made. The table is only about ways of processing raw data. The way we calculate MACD from price and histogram from MACD is similar to way we calculate speed from coordinates and acceleration from speed. The part of physics that deals with it is called kinematics and, being pure descriptional one, makes no predictions. To make a prediction we have to introduce idea of force. (Which would convert kinematics to dynamics. Dynamics does make predictions. To make TA a predictional science we have to introduce idea of "market forces". Which I didn't do, because it would be an analogy rather than science.

Hehehe. Nice.

One remark though: I like your table, but your original equivalence was: divergence - second derivative - acceleration. You sure about that one? I'm still trying myself to wrap my head around how to best conceptualize 'divergence' (in the TA sense), but I'm not sure if it's as straightforward as it being the second derivative.

In the paragraph above you seem to substitute 'histogram' for 'divergence', which I think is more accurate. 'Divergence' is, imo, at least another step removed from that.

I had hope nobody would notice  Yes, I do think 'histogram' is more correct. I'll make correction in my original post, but the evidence of my stupidity would still remain in numerous quotes. Facepalm!  

[cbeast]

To Tzupy, MaxwellsDemon, zimmah  -thanks for the appreciation. I wish I was good it TA, but I've just started learning it.
To cbeast  - special thanks. The sign of real popularity is people parodying you

You made an analogy that TA is like math and physics. Math and physics make 100% accurate predictions. You imply that TA makes 100% accurate predictions. Please demonstrate your predictive science.

No such implications was made. The table is only about ways of processing raw data. The way we calculate MACD from price and histogram from MACD is similar to way we calculate speed from coordinates and acceleration from speed. The part of physics that deals with it is called kinematics and, being pure descriptional one, makes no predictions. To make a prediction we have to introduce idea of force. (Which would convert kinematics to dynamics. Dynamics does make predictions. To make TA a predictional science we have to introduce idea of "market forces". Which I didn't do, because it would be an analogy rather than science.

If you are describing objective data using science, then the data must be corroborated by multiple disciplines of science, else it is observational bias. And yes, in order to call it any science at all, you must be able to make some sorts of predictions. Otherwise, you have just another pseudoscience like astrology.

[Wary]

To Tzupy, MaxwellsDemon, zimmah  -thanks for the appreciation. I wish I was good it TA, but I've just started learning it.
To cbeast  - special thanks. The sign of real popularity is people parodying you

You made an analogy that TA is like math and physics. Math and physics make 100% accurate predictions. You imply that TA makes 100% accurate predictions. Please demonstrate your predictive science.

No such implications was made. The table is only about ways of processing raw data. The way we calculate MACD from price and histogram from MACD is similar to way we calculate speed from coordinates and acceleration from speed. The part of physics that deals with it is called kinematics and, being pure descriptional one, makes no predictions. To make a prediction we have to introduce idea of force. (Which would convert kinematics to dynamics. Dynamics does make predictions. To make TA a predictional science we have to introduce idea of "market forces". Which I didn't do, because it would be an analogy rather than science.

If you are describing objective data using science, then the data must be corroborated by multiple disciplines of science, else it is observational bias. And yes, in order to call it any science at all, you must be able to make some sorts of predictions. Otherwise, you have just another pseudoscience like astrology.

If you are saying that kinematics is a pseudoscience, like astrology, so be it. Who am I to argue with Hero member? 

[cbeast]

To Tzupy, MaxwellsDemon, zimmah  -thanks for the appreciation. I wish I was good it TA, but I've just started learning it.
To cbeast  - special thanks. The sign of real popularity is people parodying you

You made an analogy that TA is like math and physics. Math and physics make 100% accurate predictions. You imply that TA makes 100% accurate predictions. Please demonstrate your predictive science.

No such implications was made. The table is only about ways of processing raw data. The way we calculate MACD from price and histogram from MACD is similar to way we calculate speed from coordinates and acceleration from speed. The part of physics that deals with it is called kinematics and, being pure descriptional one, makes no predictions. To make a prediction we have to introduce idea of force. (Which would convert kinematics to dynamics. Dynamics does make predictions. To make TA a predictional science we have to introduce idea of "market forces". Which I didn't do, because it would be an analogy rather than science.

If you are describing objective data using science, then the data must be corroborated by multiple disciplines of science, else it is observational bias. And yes, in order to call it any science at all, you must be able to make some sorts of predictions. Otherwise, you have just another pseudoscience like astrology.

If you are saying that kinematics is a pseudoscience, like astrology, so be it. Who am I to argue with Hero member?  

I am saying that kinematics can be used to predict the future with certainty, but TA cannot. TA therefore is pseudoscience.

[MaxwellsDemon]

And yes, in order to call it any science at all, you must be able to make some sorts of predictions. Otherwise, you have just another pseudoscience like astrology.

You might want to leave Popper back in the 50's, where he belongs 

[Bitcoin_is_here_to_stay]

What about going back to more prosaic discussion of the current price movement? Where do you think is support and resistance? What chance the triangle will resolve up or down?

[oda.krell]

What about going back to more prosaic discussion of the current price movement? Where do you think is support and resistance? What chance the triangle will resolve up or down?

Not sure what you have in mind.

This one?




Daily RSI, Williams %R and MFI closed below 50, and don't seem to move for now. I can see us break out downwards, but I'd expect we find support at $533/$534 (3d BB, 23% fib $1160 to $340)

[MatTheCat]

Daily RSI, Williams %R and MFI closed below 50, and don't seem to move for now. I can see us break out downwards, but I'd expect we find support at $533/$534 (3d BB, 23% fib $1160 to $340)

As someone who is long Bitcoin, would it not concern you a bit that a break downwards, would mean breaking that trendline which dates back to Jan 2013, the very beginnings of the massive bull run that peaked in November 2013. When looking at charts through the lens of EW analysis, the breach of such a trendline would generally be seen as confirmation that the market was in a correction phase.

[windjc]

Daily RSI, Williams %R and MFI closed below 50, and don't seem to move for now. I can see us break out downwards, but I'd expect we find support at $533/$534 (3d BB, 23% fib $1160 to $340)

As someone who is long Bitcoin, would it not concern you a bit that a break downwards, would mean breaking that trendline which dates back to Jan 2013, the very beginnings of the massive bull run that peaked in November 2013. When looking at charts through the lens of EW analysis, the breach of such a trendline would generally be seen as confirmation that the market was in a correction phase.

No.

Why is breaking a long term trendline like that important? Trendlines are only important when they effect the mood of traders. If people are not going to sell their coins, as we saw in the low 400s, then trendlines will come and go until we go up again.

Since 2009 we are up and up.  You really think this is as high as it goes?

Its not going lower than what people are willing to sell for.

But it IS going up because there are still 6 billion+ people that don't know what it is.

[oda.krell]

Daily RSI, Williams %R and MFI closed below 50, and don't seem to move for now. I can see us break out downwards, but I'd expect we find support at $533/$534 (3d BB, 23% fib $1160 to $340)

As someone who is long Bitcoin, would it not concern you a bit that a break downwards, would mean breaking that trendline which dates back to Jan 2013, the very beginnings of the massive bull run that peaked in November 2013. When looking at charts through the lens of EW analysis, the breach of such a trendline would generally be seen as confirmation that the market was in a correction phase.

Said it before, but that particular trendline isn't really on my radar, if for no other reason that I never considered it sustainable in the first place. If we break out downwards, and we don't find support at 560, and we don't find support at ~530, then I'll have to reconsider my bullish outlook. Until then, I consider 'stretched out upwards consolidation' still more likely than 'mother of all bull traps'.