It's called a correction (waveaddict's bitcoin charting subscription thread)

[Otoh]

[1714006031]

1714006031

[1714006031]

1714006031

[1714006031]

1714006031

[1714006031]

1714006031

[1714006031]

1714006031

[Otoh]

the master plan...

[JusticeForYou]

It's always a bad idea to guess what could happen with indicators.

Good Advice.

[bitcoinBull]

Well, if he is indeed forcing the market to go where it doesn't naturally want to go then the aftermath could be brutal especially if that direction is down. There was probably a large group of people who panic bought because of that wall at 4.6 instead of waiting for a lower price, along a different group, who were otherwise selling or would have sold in the mid 4s but changed their mind because of the wall. So, if that wall disappears, in theory, you have an even greater supply of bitcoins wanting to get out from the additional remorseful buyers and natural sellers whose sole reason for owning bitcoin was that wall.

From a real market perspective, the FED manipulated the US markets by providing cheap credit after the dot com bubble popped and bottomed in 2003. For 5 years the market artificially rallied, but in end, because the rally was based on unsustainable manipulation and people who were buying solely because the the now famous Greenspan put (think of the bitcoin wall), the market crashed in 2008 all the way down to where it was before and lower in half the time as the previous crash. And, as many of you are aware of, the FED is doing the exact same thing again. Rinse and repeat. I wonder what will happen this time around  

The bitcoin market does not have a "natural" direction - the market is determined by bids and asks.  When there's more bids than asks, the direction is up. 

We can see from the volume that there hasn't been much buying since the bid wall went up.  So there probably won't be much selling even if it is removed.  We saw that when the wall at $2.2 went up in November, and was then removed, the market bottomed at $1.95 because the sellers were already exhausted at $2.8-$3.0. 

We can look at the recent selling volume now and see that it was mostly maxed out around $5-$5.5 with the rest happening below that. That's confirmed by looking at the OBV (On Balance Volume), which also lined up almost perfectly with the November low.


As for the Fed, its accurate to call that manipulation of the market because you have one entity which controls the printing press (or the digital ledger, more accurately) and can assign themselves an arbitrary number of USD.  But nobody can do that with bitcoin.

[Otoh]

hi guys, I've set up a chat room for regular members of waveaddict's charting subscription service for anyone who may be interested in discussing the charts & advise openly in a private virtual room, it can be found here:

http://www.chatzy.com/53133032409124

if you are on the list of members here & you'd like to drop in then please to PM me for the room's password or post here & I'll send it to you, if you're not on that list then please to ask WA to let me know that you're a member & I'll add you (unless you'd rather be anon - in which case pse to let me know)

note this is an unofficial WA room, though like my site he's welcome to take it over at any time or just drop in to use it if he wishes - I've emailed him the regular & admin P/Ws, also note that as I don't know who most of the premium service members are the contents of those emails should remain confidential for now

thanks to SkRRJyTC for the chatzy tip

[waveaddict]

I'm over in Otoh's chat room right now for anyone interested. Just follow his instructions to get signed in.

EDIT: I went ahead and just sent an email with the password to current subscribers.

[waveaddict]

-March 31 update sent   
(includes chart: 137, 138)

I'll be in the chat room in about 2 hours or so.

[waveaddict]

'premium only' email sent

Whichever subscriber of mine is using a hushmail account, I need you to delete some of the emails in your account to make room for more. Your account is full at the moment and hushmail keeps sending your emails back to me.

[waveaddict]

-April 1 update sent  
(includes chart: 139)

[waveaddict]

very lively atmosphere in chat right now if any subscribers would like to join

[mobodick]

posted this a couple of weeks ago: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforum.png/

situation now: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforumii.png/

Looking at this in hindsight i don't see the slightlest correlation in the predicted part of your graphs and reality...
It seems you twice predict a strong rally which failed to materialize for almost 2 months.
Furthermore, if one cares enough to study the data in detail one can notice that there are many channels to chose from and the question is why you chose the ones that faild to correctly predict behaviour?

If i were to go along with these predictions i would have lost.
So why would any sane person want this kind of advice?

[waveaddict]

posted this a couple of weeks ago: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforum.png/

situation now: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforumii.png/

Looking at this in hindsight i don't see the slightlest correlation in the predicted part of your graphs and reality...
It seems you twice predict a strong rally which failed to materialize for almost 2 months.
Furthermore, if one cares enough to study the data in detail one can notice that there are many channels to chose from and the question is why you chose the ones that faild to correctly predict behaviour?

If i were to go along with these predictions i would have lost.
So why would any sane person want this kind of advice?

You would have bought in at $4, so how would you have lost? 

[mobodick]

posted this a couple of weeks ago: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforum.png/

situation now: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforumii.png/

Looking at this in hindsight i don't see the slightlest correlation in the predicted part of your graphs and reality...
It seems you twice predict a strong rally which failed to materialize for almost 2 months.
Furthermore, if one cares enough to study the data in detail one can notice that there are many channels to chose from and the question is why you chose the ones that faild to correctly predict behaviour?

If i were to go along with these predictions i would have lost.
So why would any sane person want this kind of advice?

You would have bought in at $4, so how would you have lost? 

What? no!
I never said that.
It's only your imagination (or unstated pre-requisite of sorts?).

What i was talking about is that your predictions are completely inacurate in both those graphs.
And of course you didn't address this in your answer.

Your first chart clearly predicts that in the first half of february the price would drop to about $3.5, then boom up to 7.5
Neither pricepoint was hit in the first half of february.
The price moved some time later but that doesn't correlate with the channels you drew.
So no relation to the channels and the price drop around feb. 13th.
Meanwhile the drop had many more waves then you predicted.
How is that even possible if wave 'theory' supposedly has predictive capabilities?

Then your second graph also predicts a rally that fails to materialize.

Now i can see that channels exist as indicators of trend.
But all this business with counting waves is fantasy IMHO.

[ineededausername]

posted this a couple of weeks ago: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforum.png/

situation now: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforumii.png/

Looking at this in hindsight i don't see the slightlest correlation in the predicted part of your graphs and reality...
It seems you twice predict a strong rally which failed to materialize for almost 2 months.
Furthermore, if one cares enough to study the data in detail one can notice that there are many channels to chose from and the question is why you chose the ones that faild to correctly predict behaviour?

If i were to go along with these predictions i would have lost.
So why would any sane person want this kind of advice?

You would have bought in at $4, so how would you have lost? 

What? no!
I never said that.

oh really

[waveaddict]

posted this a couple of weeks ago: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforum.png/

situation now: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforumii.png/

Looking at this in hindsight i don't see the slightlest correlation in the predicted part of your graphs and reality...
It seems you twice predict a strong rally which failed to materialize for almost 2 months.
Furthermore, if one cares enough to study the data in detail one can notice that there are many channels to chose from and the question is why you chose the ones that faild to correctly predict behaviour?

If i were to go along with these predictions i would have lost.
So why would any sane person want this kind of advice?

You would have bought in at $4, so how would you have lost? 

What? no!
I never said that.
It's only your imagination (or unstated pre-requisite of sorts?).

What i was talking about is that your predictions are completely inacurate in both those graphs.
And of course you didn't address this in your answer.

Your first chart clearly predicts that in the first half of february the price would drop to about $3.5, then boom up to 7.5
Neither pricepoint was hit in the first half of february.
The price moved some time later but that doesn't correlate with the channels you drew.
So no relation to the channels and the price drop around feb. 13th.
Meanwhile the drop had many more waves then you predicted.
How is that even possible if wave 'theory' supposedly has predictive capabilities?

Then your second graph also predicts a rally that fails to materialize.

Now i can see that channels exist as indicators of trend.
But all this business with counting waves is fantasy IMHO.

It's called adapting. Do you have any idea how many different paths we could have taken to get to that target zone of $4. I merely pointed one out (which I saw as most likely at the time) that ended up being pretty close to what actually materialized. Remember, I did not start the subscription service until after the second image. Obviously, if I was actively charting bitcoin daily and posting free charts throughout that period, I would have re-drew the trend-lines to fit the 'obvious triangle before the plunge to $4. You can always say that I was not perfectly accurate here, but honestly what would you have done or thought at the time that I posted the first image? You were probably just as bullish as the majority of people around $6 before we fell to $4.

Go right ahead and try to trade bitcoin without me. Do you really think that you know more than I do about technical analysis and its predictive power along with its limits? This is not an exact science; we are not working with precision here...merely probabilities and experience.

Regarding your point about heading straight up from the $4 bottom and how I was wrong: This is the longest period of time that bitcoin has traded sideways. There is no precedent (the very heart of technical analysis) for this kind of action from looking at past data. Therefore, no sane analyst/trader would have called a continuation of a sideways movement at that time knowing how volatile bitcoin's past has been.

[waveaddict]

But all this business with counting waves is fantasy IMHO.

This was the last public prediction in mid February as stated in the opening post of this thread:

Here is what was predicted:
http://imageshack.us/f/217/bitcoinforumiii.png/  --> I specifically stated that red was more likely within the chart.

Here is what happened:
http://imageshack.us/f/715/145f.png/

You can ignore the waves all you want, but they are there. I am inevitably going to be wrong at times about which plausible wave count succeeds because this is a game of probabilities, but when you nail the correct count or invalidate impossible counts in time, there is no other predictive analysis that can make you more money or prevent you from losing a great deal of money in the long run. It is one of the few analytical tools that is not reactive but proactive in helping you gauge where the price can and cannot go.

[waveaddict]

-April 3 update sent 
(includes chart: 146, 147)

I forgot to post here yesterday even though I sent an email out:
-April 2 update
(includes chart: 144)

[mobodick]

posted this a couple of weeks ago: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforum.png/

situation now: http://imageshack.us/f/809/bitcoinforumii.png/

Looking at this in hindsight i don't see the slightlest correlation in the predicted part of your graphs and reality...
It seems you twice predict a strong rally which failed to materialize for almost 2 months.
Furthermore, if one cares enough to study the data in detail one can notice that there are many channels to chose from and the question is why you chose the ones that faild to correctly predict behaviour?

If i were to go along with these predictions i would have lost.
So why would any sane person want this kind of advice?

You would have bought in at $4, so how would you have lost? 

What? no!
I never said that.

oh really

I was talking about the price.
It was nowhere near $4 at the time so i couldn't have bought in.

[waveaddict]

I was talking about the price. It was nowhere near $4 at the time so i couldn't have bought in.

At what time?

[waveaddict]

-April 4 update sent  
(includes chart: 148)

I forgot to attach the chart in the first email, so I just sent another one with the file attached. In all, there should be two separate emails that you will get shortly if you haven't got them already.