CryptoWaves - Elliott Wave Analysis Blog

[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.

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.

sure, but the point of the thread is discuss, and maybe reach consensus. In an EW thread I'd give preference to your count, although I would only use it if it inspired me to. 

[1713879666]

1713879666

[1713879666]

1713879666

[1713879666]

1713879666

[1713879666]

1713879666

[1713879666]

1713879666

[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.

sure, but the point of the thread is discuss, and maybe reach consensus. In an EW thread I'd give preference to your count, although I would only use it if it inspired me to. 

Absolutley!

[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

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.

I like your counts. First one the most as it has clear subwave patterns. However, there are some inconsistencies.
1: wave B subdivided into an impulse with deep 2nd wave and flat 4th. Everything else fits perfectly, especially subcount of wave c and their sub-subcounts. If we go up from now it's confirmed.
2: Wave iii of 5 is not an impulse, but rather a diagonal, and as we know they don't appear in 3rd waves. I guess this one is invalidated.
3: Wave 2, again, looks more like an impulse. I think last price action invalidated this one as well.

Also, could you please include volume in your graphs in the future?

Thanks for sharing your work.

[chessnut]

RuNinDaClem, C = impulse. I hadn't looked for it before you assured me that it had to be an impulse, but it actually seems better than the zigzag earlier. This is cearly five waves, the last clearly terminal, and diverging.

what are your thoughts on this? or have you covered this already?

[Queeq]

Yea, and if this count is correct (big flat after ATH), then we are at the beginning of new rally. So all we need to know now is if we are inside 2nd or b wave. I guess it would become clear around 600-700.

[Queeq]

I think critical level is at 670-700. It's 1.618 of our current i/a wave and also is the end of previous 4th wave. C-wave should end there.

[chessnut]

Yea, and if this count is correct (big flat after ATH), then we are at the beginning of new rally. So all we need to know now is if we are inside 2nd or b wave. I guess it would become clear around 600-700.

thanks,
and in your opinion, or anyone else, how does this shape up to the 266 low alternative?
I think 266 is a highly sentimental number, never will be touched. and more significantly, to forecast any further lows is dismissing some serious divergance.

[RyNinDaCleM]

I like your counts. First one the most as it has clear subwave patterns. However, there are some inconsistencies.
1: wave B subdivided into an impulse with deep 2nd wave and flat 4th. Everything else fits perfectly, especially subcount of wave c and their sub-subcounts. If we go up from now it's confirmed.
2: Wave iii of 5 is not an impulse, but rather a diagonal, and as we know they don't appear in 3rd waves. I guess this one is invalidated.
3: Wave 2, again, looks more like an impulse. I think last price action invalidated this one as well.

Also, could you please include volume in your graphs in the future?

Thanks for sharing your work.

#1 I do see what you count there and I'll just answer with this
While it can be counted as an impulse (red) I chose to count it corrective (yellow) because the price fell below the red dotted line, thereby invalidating an impulsive count there.


#2 I'm not sure which iii of 5... 5 of B?

The labellings are slightly different so I could have the extra degree labels.

#3 I'm guessing you are referring to points in the first chart still?

[RyNinDaCleM]

Yea, and if this count is correct (big flat after ATH), then we are at the beginning of new rally. So all we need to know now is if we are inside 2nd or b wave. I guess it would become clear around 600-700.

thanks,
and in your opinion, or anyone else, how does this shape up to the 266 low alternative?
I think 266 is a highly sentimental number, never will be touched. and more significantly, to forecast any further lows is dismissing some serious divergance.

The most serious of divergences is the volume. Any other divergence can be neutralized with a day of high volume, sharp drop off. Which is why I don't just dismiss anything as impossible.

About your chart, that is pretty much my Bitstamp count, though Bitstamp has a little more going on with it.

[Queeq]

I like your counts. First one the most as it has clear subwave patterns. However, there are some inconsistencies.
1: wave B subdivided into an impulse with deep 2nd wave and flat 4th. Everything else fits perfectly, especially subcount of wave c and their sub-subcounts. If we go up from now it's confirmed.
2: Wave iii of 5 is not an impulse, but rather a diagonal, and as we know they don't appear in 3rd waves. I guess this one is invalidated.
3: Wave 2, again, looks more like an impulse. I think last price action invalidated this one as well.

Also, could you please include volume in your graphs in the future?

Thanks for sharing your work.

#1 I do see what you count there and I'll just answer with this
While it can be counted as an impulse (red) I chose to count it corrective (yellow) because the price fell below the red dotted line, thereby invalidating an impulsive count there.


#2 I'm not sure which iii of 5... 5 of B?

The labellings are slightly different so I could have the extra degree labels.

#3 I'm guessing you are referring to points in the first chart still?

#1: Yeah, looked closer at BTC-e chart, it's really more like a-b-c.

#2: Major wave V from red line above to the very bottom. Its wave 3 subdivided as i-ii-iii-iv-v, I had question about this subdivision. Well, at this zoom looks reasonable. I thought it had intersections like a diagonal.

#3: This was about the third image. Wave 1 - leading diagonal down. Wave 2, yes, like an impulse that was discussed in the first image. However that is clear now.

As a conclusion, I still think #1 forecast is the most accurate.

[RyNinDaCleM]

What would you guys say if this happened?


Wait! Before you go shooting this down, one thing to consider, that keeps this kind of count alive is that this rise (so far) seems very corrective still. To get a 3 waver making the first higher high since December would make this even more plausible. I would be inclined to move this count up a few notches on my likeliness scale if that happened.

[Queeq]

What is this count? I don't know about it.

Yes, it's still may be corrective and could be treated as corrective up to 750.

[RyNinDaCleM]

What is this count? I don't know about it.

Yes, it's still may be corrective and could be treated as corrective up to 750.

This count is for the situation where the $339 low was the end of a large ABC making a larger A and we are in a big B now. If this were to come to fruition, the B could technically make new ATH's before revisiting $339 and possibly below.

[Queeq]

This count is for the situation where the $339 low was the end of a large ABC making a larger A and we are in a big B now. If this were to come to fruition, the B could technically make new ATH's before revisiting $339 and possibly below.

Like very big flat? Either extended or running?

[RyNinDaCleM]

This count is for the situation where the $339 low was the end of a large ABC making a larger A and we are in a big B now. If this were to come to fruition, the B could technically make new ATH's before revisiting $339 and possibly below.

Like very big flat? Either extended or running?

Yes!
A flat would end somewhere near the $339 low +/- a few percent.

A running flats C would fall short but still must be at least 61.8% of the Larger A and the irregular flat would end below $339 somewhere.
These are only if the B makes a new higher high. If not, then the C would likely go below the $339 low and accelerate. Especially if the B goes to 700 or higher, many would see that as a failure to make new ATH's (not necessarily a Bitcoin failure) and thus, the bear market is not over and would start jumping ship to either bottom fish, or just to cut losses/take profits. The C would probably be only a few weeks shorter than the A since December, so too long for some.

Again, this is a long time away, IF it happens. That's a big if.

[chessnut]

seems like an abc has clearly terminated 1-2 i-ii stalling at resistance. longs would be vulnerable now. Im out.

although I cannot see a primary to the left so I am not convinced that a disaster is on the way. If a third wave does not take us rapidly through 400, I will be expecing a slow trip to test 400-415, a bounce, and perhaps re evaluate afterwards.

any ideas?

[Queeq]

If this is an ABC correction, what is the motive wave it corrects?

Also, if it is a zigzag, then A waves should subdivide into five waves.

[chessnut]

If this is an ABC correction, what is the motive wave it corrects?

Also, if it is a zigzag, then A waves should subdivide into five waves.

the abc is a B wave. The A wave is an abc, Im pretty sure there is nothing wrong with that, according to the resources that I have. I thought only C waves had to be counted as fives. How would you count the A wave as a five wave? if it is not an A wave, how would you count it?

[Kramerc]

I am an EW noob and don't know how to chart, but to me it looks like rynindaclem's 1/3 chart is still valid.

I am talking about this one:

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sierrachart.com%2Fimage.php%3Fl%3D1398722566406.png&t=539&c=3RGiLMbe8k66_A

[chessnut]

I am an EW noob and don't know how to chart, but to me it looks like rynindaclem's 1/3 chart is still valid.

I am talking about this one:

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sierrachart.com%2Fimage.php%3Fl%3D1398722566406.png&t=539&c=3RGiLMbe8k66_A

the problem is now that the current move since 425 low cannot be counted as a primary. I think It could still eventuate of coarse but I'm trying to find a better solution at the moment.