CryptoWaves - Elliott Wave Analysis Blog

[Queeq]

3-3-3 must be flat. But it's not flat, it's zigzag most likely. So we should count it as 5-3-5.

Unless it goes to 340 area again.

[1714906025]

1714906025

[1714906025]

1714906025

[Queeq]

Erm... Or are you talking about waves from ATH? I meant possible zigzag from 340.

[chessnut]

Erm... Or are you talking about waves from ATH? I meant possible zigzag from 340.

yes, talking about ATH. 100% certain that A wave is a zigzag.

[RyNinDaCleM]

The two problems I see with this chart is that 1) your large C should sub-divide into 5 waves not 3(ABC).
2) is that your I off the 339 bottom is not 5 waves, imo. I suppose it can be if you really force it, but not with any kind of proper proportions.

Edit:
To help better explain the 1-2-1-2 to Queeq
It is the same as nested 1-2's Call it an extended 3rd. Ex. I, II, 1, 2, 3, 4, III, IV, V

Im not banking on a primary wave, but the chart is tell me that alternatively a wave C is coming to 550 - 600. the market has turned unexpectedly (not to EW) after BAD news. it has fundamental drive.

my overall C wave divides into ABC. is that incorrect? abc - abc - abc is not uncommon?

In EVERY ABC the C is 5 waves. The A can be either 3 or 5 and the B is of course always 3, but the main thing is that C is 5 waves.
When you have a correction that has ABC ABC ABC then it's called a complex (sometimes called combination) correction and is labeled WXY. This is also known as double and triple zig-zags or double/triple threes, where you have two zig-zags labeled W,Y linked by a counter trend rally labeled X. In a triple zig-zag you have an additional zig-zag labeled Z and again separated by an Xx wave.
If you want more info on WXY's then just ask.

Erm... Or are you talking about waves from ATH? I meant possible zigzag from 340.

Yes, I was talking about the count from the ATH.

I believe the rise from $339 is indeed a zig-zag. It completely looks like two impulses but the correction after the second, invalidated it as a bullish motive.

[chessnut]

In EVERY ABC the C is 5 waves. The A can be either 3 or 5 and the B is of course always 3, but the main thing is that C is 5 waves.

Im sure that's not a rule, many ABC corrections are composed entirely of overlapping zigzags without a trace of impulsive behaviour. the standard model is corrections overlap, and impulsives do not.

[Queeq]

Oops, yes, 3-3-5 indeed, not 3-3-3. Maybe I confused it with triangle where it is 3-3-3-3-3.

So 3-3-5 flat correction fits great. However it's not really flat, as B and C incline downward. Though, AFAIK, it's possible. If it is so we must reach $1k in five waves. 2 of them already complete. Would be invalidated if we go below 340.

[Queeq]

In EVERY ABC the C is 5 waves. The A can be either 3 or 5 and the B is of course always 3, but the main thing is that C is 5 waves.

Im sure that's not a rule, many ABC corrections are composed entirely of overlapping zigzags without a trace of impulsive behaviour. the standard model is corrections overlap, and impulsives do not.

Overlaps inside motive waves are in diagonals. Leading or ending. No diagonal possible in wave 3.

[RyNinDaCleM]

In EVERY ABC the C is 5 waves. The A can be either 3 or 5 and the B is of course always 3, but the main thing is that C is 5 waves.

Im sure that's not a rule, many ABC corrections are composed entirely of overlapping zigzags without a trace of impulsive behaviour. the standard model is corrections overlap, and impulsives do not.

EVERY C is 5 waves, ALWAYS!
http://www.forexhit.com/learn-forex/elliott-wave-principle.html
About half way down there is the section called flats, zig-zags, and irregulars.

The simple corrections (flats/zig-zags) have only 2 structures. 3-3-5 and 5-3-5, though a triangle can be called a "3" in the B wave.
3-3-3 and 3-3-3-3-3 are complex corrections.
Edit
To add to that last line, those 3-3-3's are subdivided into 5-3-5's

[RyNinDaCleM]

A little closer for the count

[chessnut]

What are your forecasts? haven't seen any lately

[Queeq]

Here is an example showing that triangles are 3-3-3-3-3:
https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=lQ0OEmzM9tsC&lpg=PA52&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false

[RyNinDaCleM]

Here is an example showing that triangles are 3-3-3-3-3:
https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=lQ0OEmzM9tsC&lpg=PA52&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false

Absolutely! Triangles are always 3-3-3-3-3. But because they are comprised of all 3 wave structures, they can be counted as the 3 (B) in the case of 3-3-5 (flats) or 5-3-5 (zig-zags).

As far as my forecasts, I have 2 scenarios as my most likely counts, and one of those have a slight alternative.
Bullish shorter term (days-weeks). It's an ABC where the C is under way. Target between $550 (flat) and $605 (zig-zag). If 605 is broken then I would consider the nested 1-2's as a likely candidate rather than ABC. Use indicators to determine how far it will go as it unfolds.


One more wave down before the C


Bearish count of Doom.
This count retests the $339 low and either double bottoms for the potential end of the bear market or breaks through and continues as low as $100. $100 is not likely, but as a potential wave 2, it is possible. I have no definite targets here, yet, because we'll have to see how things are going IF we go there.


Where we are right now (22:20UTC) could be that 4 top before the final push down for B in my alt bull count. It also corresponds to the iv of 1 of C (or the 2 of C in the case of a leading diagonal). This small pull back was expected and I will expand my position if we see $435 before heading higher. If not, then I look at it as the iv of 1 of C option and I wait until the 2 to get in more.

I hope that is clear for everyone who frontruns it

Edit
This is why you don't use EW alone
There are too many variables to it and it can burn you. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS use other indicators to back up your trade.

[chessnut]

Edit
This is why you don't use EW alone
There are too many variables to it and it can burn you. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS use other indicators to back up your trade.

the eyes are best indicators. I dont use any others.

did you know that the brain can be trained to see using a digital signal from a digital camera passed through the nerves of the tongue? after some training, blind people have been able to navigate walking through a room using a digital camera, just like bats can fly with sonar.

I think some people seek consistency with indicators, but I think the inconsistency within a trader is the root of all our troubles.

[RyNinDaCleM]

Edit
This is why you don't use EW alone
There are too many variables to it and it can burn you. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS use other indicators to back up your trade.

the eyes are best indicators. I dont use any others.

did you know that the brain can be trained to see using a digital signal from a digital camera passed through the nerves of the tongue? after some training, blind people have been able to navigate walking through a room using a digital camera, just like bats can fly with sonar.

I think some people seek consistency with indicators, but I think the inconsistency within a trader is the root of all our troubles.

I agree for the most part. If you spend as much time as I have watching charts and the real time order books like GoxLive or BTCCharts, you can see when momentum changes and trade based on that. I used to do this a lot for quick trades and bottom fishing. I don't have the time anymore to do this, so I use indicators as a major part of my analysis. My counts aren't meant as absolute future telling. I count to determine what is possible next to weigh the risk for which side I look for. Then I use indicators to confirm tops/bottoms and depending on the time frame I am trading, entry/exit points. On days that I have more time to devote to charts, I'll trade every wave of an impulse and most of the correction. To me, it's boring to be a buy and holder :-/

[chessnut]

RyNinDaCleM, can you comment on my B wave wedge intrpretation? It seems to stand out to me as the most obvious interpretation, considering that this bear run is weaker than the previous bull run - while I think your primary count is very clever.

- im talking aout this one.

[RyNinDaCleM]

RyNinDaCleM, can you comment on my B wave wedge intrpretation? It seems to stand out to me as the most obvious interpretation, considering that this bear run is weaker than the previous bull run - while I think your primary count is very clever.

- im talking aout this one.

To be a triangle, it needs to have 5 distinct waves and each wave needs 3 subwaves.
If the first rise after your a=x then the final rise to make your b needs to be at least x*.618 in length to be a valid C. It is not, so I wouldn't count your triangle as it's own abc either.

[chessnut]

RyNinDaCleM, can you comment on my B wave wedge intrpretation? It seems to stand out to me as the most obvious interpretation, considering that this bear run is weaker than the previous bull run - while I think your primary count is very clever.

- im talking aout this one.

To be a triangle, it needs to have 5 distinct waves and each wave needs 3 subwaves.
If the first rise after your a=x then the final rise to make your b needs to be at least x*.618 in length to be a valid C. It is not, so I wouldn't count your triangle as it's own abc either.

there are many species of triangles no?
wedges describe the case where wave c fails to exceed the extreme of wave a. this is not a 'triangle'.

[RyNinDaCleM]

RyNinDaCleM, can you comment on my B wave wedge intrpretation? It seems to stand out to me as the most obvious interpretation, considering that this bear run is weaker than the previous bull run - while I think your primary count is very clever.

- im talking aout this one.

To be a triangle, it needs to have 5 distinct waves and each wave needs 3 subwaves.
If the first rise after your a=x then the final rise to make your b needs to be at least x*.618 in length to be a valid C. It is not, so I wouldn't count your triangle as it's own abc either.

there are many species of triangles no?
wedges describe the case where wave c fails to exceed the extreme of wave a. this is not a 'triangle'.

A wedge from an EW point of view is a triangle in the sense that it has converging lines and therefore is not a channel. However, wedges are found in impulsive waves (1, 5, A, C) and both trend lines are ascending, or both are descending. Triangles are corrective continuation patterns. The direction entered is the direction leaving.
Take this schematic. It shows how bearish and bullish triangles are expected to behave. The only thing it doesn't show is expanding triangles which follow the same rules, but have diverging trend lines. One thing to notice about triangles is that the top line is either flat or descending and the bottom line is either flat or ascending.


An ABC where the C fails to make a new price extreme is a failed C. It also happens in running flats (where B makes a new price extreme and C falls short of the end of A).

When a triangle has less than 5 waves and breaks out/down, then there is another count for the pattern than a triangle. It wasn't a triangle! Since yours had an A,B and most of a C then I would automatically change to a 1-2 of some degree since  a higher high was not made and it holds the rules of a wave 2.

I think the wedge you are referring to is the wedge commonly used by general pattern recognition. In EW, a wedge (diagonal triangle) has rules to adhere to.

[chessnut]

well if thats the hard EW rules, ok. I just fell like its the same either way - consolidation. contracting liquidty, contracting range. The c wave was rudely interrupted by news, so possibly it was a failed c wave, but I'll give your analysis benefit of the doubt.

[RyNinDaCleM]

well if thats the hard EW rules, ok. I just fell like its the same either way - consolidation. contracting liquidty, contracting range. The c wave was rudely interrupted by news, so possibly it was a failed c wave, but I'll give your analysis benefit of the doubt.

I'm not saying to follow my counts. You have the ability to count, so you should count it and re count it and when you think you have it, count it again. Weigh your options, gauge risk, then count again. You can come up with many counts for the same group of waves so don't be overly biased in one direction or the other. One more piece of advice would be to always start with a significant low or high. I know you stated somewhere that you start at the ATH, well good! Do that every time and you will continue to be successful with EW.