Ryans' log

[canibalbranco]

3)  The candles actually seem to distract me from the points.  I wonder if it would make sense for me, anyway, to use a line chart.  

Edit...the only thing I can think of as a starting point is to try to find the 3's.

The problem with a line chart is that it's usually based on an average. OHLC avg, HLC, VWAP, etc... So it's doesn't tell the whole story and it won't show overlaps that invalidate a count either. Candlesticks and OHLC bars are best suited for this job.

Furthermore, the shape of a candlestick also brings relevant market information.  

http://d.stockcharts.com/school/data/media/chart_school/overview/technical_analysis16e.png

[RyNinDaCleM]

3)  The candles actually seem to distract me from the points.  I wonder if it would make sense for me, anyway, to use a line chart.  

Edit...the only thing I can think of as a starting point is to try to find the 3's.

The problem with a line chart is that it's usually based on an average. OHLC avg, HLC, VWAP, etc... So it's doesn't tell the whole story and it won't show overlaps that invalidate a count either. Candlesticks and OHLC bars are best suited for this job.

Furthermore, the shape of a candlestick also brings relevant market information.  

You are correct however, this has nothing to do with EW. There is a wealth of info in candles, but the only thing we use in EW is the high and low of the candle.

[Raystonn]

We are currently in (C).  It looks close to ending, perhaps near 30x.  We should then resume our bull market with (I), right?  Where are we in terms of SuperCycles?

Thanks

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion

Interesting. This chart would imply a [I] that is very much larger than the [III], no? The earliest price I see for the start of [I] would be 0.04951. From that to 31.91 is massively larger than the labeled [III], which is supposed to be the largest. How do we deal with this discrepancy?

[Gimmelfarb]

i saw someone post something like this in the Tradingview chat room. i am not taking it seriously, but wondering if this is in any way plausible from an EW perspective of the larger cycle.

[RyNinDaCleM]

We are currently in (C).  It looks close to ending, perhaps near 30x.  We should then resume our bull market with (I), right?  Where are we in terms of SuperCycles?

Thanks

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion

Interesting. This chart would imply a [I] that is very much larger than the [III], no? The earliest price I see for the start of [I] would be 0.04951. From that to 31.91 is massively larger than the labeled [III], which is supposed to be the largest. How do we deal with this discrepancy?

EW is price based, so the rise in 2011, while astronomical on a percentage basis, is not nearly as big on a Dollar basis. Also, 3 cannot be the shortest wave, but it does not have to be the largest wave either. In most bubbles during Bitcoins' short history, the 5th wave is by far the largest wave however, for intraday waves it is not the same story.

[RyNinDaCleM]

i saw someone post something like this in the Tradingview chat room. i am not taking it seriously, but wondering if this is in any way plausible from an EW perspective of the larger cycle.

The Chinese exchanges are the only place it's valid. It could lead to a failed C for the western exchanges, in which case, it is plausible. I do not think this is the case though, because the E wave makes a great 1-2-3 of an impulse but the C (in the case of an ABC to create the E) is grossly disproportionate to the A. But, this is Bitcoin...

[CoinBurner]

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion
https://i.imgur.com/Un9xN3G.png

  wow so if this plays out ...

https://i.imgur.com/pbg1EEw.png

ehmmm sorry I couldn't resist  

serious question now: some weeks ago I stumbled upon a BTC long-term wave count from http://www.elliottwave.com/ in which they labelled the december high as a [V], predicting a massive retracement to early 2013 levels. By the way, during the July-August 2013 rise the same guys were swearing that it was a B correction, and soon bitcoin would have fallen in a terrible C wave... we all know how it ended!!
so question is: could the whole Gox affair, and in particular the infamous willy bot (which seems to have started its operation around that time), have played some major role in heavily distorting market dynamics ? Have you (Ryan or any other EW master) been surprised back then by the price evolution e.g. by some evident EW rule (or at least guideline) violation which in hindsight could have been attributed to this massive market manipulation??

[Raystonn]

We are currently in (C).  It looks close to ending, perhaps near 30x.  We should then resume our bull market with (I), right?  Where are we in terms of SuperCycles?

Thanks

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion

Interesting. This chart would imply a [I] that is very much larger than the [III], no? The earliest price I see for the start of [I] would be 0.04951. From that to 31.91 is massively larger than the labeled [III], which is supposed to be the largest. How do we deal with this discrepancy?

EW is price based, so the rise in 2011, while astronomical on a percentage basis, is not nearly as big on a Dollar basis. Also, 3 cannot be the shortest wave, but it does not have to be the largest wave either. In most bubbles during Bitcoins' short history, the 5th wave is by far the largest wave however, for intraday waves it is not the same story.

I don't think you can truly stick with a linear interpretation of price for something with exponential growth, like Bitcoin.  That would imply close to $30 of price increase for wave [V], which is completely wrong.

[RyNinDaCleM]

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion
https://i.imgur.com/Un9xN3G.png

  wow so if this plays out ...

https://i.imgur.com/pbg1EEw.png

ehmmm sorry I couldn't resist  

serious question now: some weeks ago I stumbled upon a BTC long-term wave count from http://www.elliottwave.com/ in which they labelled the december high as a [V], predicting a massive retracement to early 2013 levels. By the way, during the July-August 2013 rise the same guys were swearing that it was a B correction, and soon bitcoin would have fallen in a terrible C wave... we all know how it ended!!
so question is: could the whole Gox affair, and in particular the infamous willy bot (which seems to have started its operation around that time), have played some major role in heavily distorting market dynamics ? Have you (Ryan or any other EW master) been surprised back then by the price evolution e.g. by some evident EW rule (or at least guideline) violation which in hindsight could have been attributed to this massive market manipulation??

No rules were broken, bent or otherwise. The chart still counts out in a valid count since the April 2013 high. As I said in my quoted text, the $1163 BS high can be either a completed cycle (as stated by EWI) or the 3 of [III] where [ I ] was the $32 high.

Indeed I was caught off guard initially. I thought we would get a standard ABC due to the huge rise we saw, and have a C that ended above $32, but below $50. Price ended up drawing out a perfect triangle on Bitstamp, and only a weak wave-E on Gox, then we were off.
I don't know that it was manipulation, per-se, in that correction, but it definitely set in stone in some peoples hearts that Bitcoin could not go down, and especially go into the price territory of the previous high.This thinking will eventually be futile. If not during this bear market then possibly the next, but it WILL happen.

We are currently in (C).  It looks close to ending, perhaps near 30x.  We should then resume our bull market with (I), right?  Where are we in terms of SuperCycles?

Thanks

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion
https://i.imgur.com/Un9xN3G.png

Interesting. This chart would imply a [I] that is very much larger than the [III], no? The earliest price I see for the start of [I] would be 0.04951. From that to 31.91 is massively larger than the labeled [III], which is supposed to be the largest. How do we deal with this discrepancy?

EW is price based, so the rise in 2011, while astronomical on a percentage basis, is not nearly as big on a Dollar basis. Also, 3 cannot be the shortest wave, but it does not have to be the largest wave either. In most bubbles during Bitcoins' short history, the 5th wave is by far the largest wave however, for intraday waves it is not the same story.

I don't think you can truly stick with a linear interpretation of price for something with exponential growth, like Bitcoin.  That would imply close to $30 of price increase for wave [V], which is completely wrong.

$30 is definitely not even a little bit likely, but it's not necessarily "wrong". Following an asset like stocks, where the 5th wave == the 1st wave by price, that is exactly what it means. But many have said it, and it's true... Bitcoin doesn't trade like a stock!
Bitcoin doesn't trade like a stock in that, it trades more like a commodity, like gold. The 5th wave is usually the biggest, but still with less power than the 3. Also, remember that there is no rule about 5th waves... The 3rd wave is already the biggest (Or at least not the smallest) so the 5th can go up a long way. Almost indefinitely, but there still must be a top, somewhere.

[RyNinDaCleM]

Right now, I still believe this is the right count. There is a new tool in this chart (time expansion), and so far we are right on time. Wave-2's usually last anywhere from 61.8% to 161.8% of the time taken by the wave-1. We are right at that 61.8% and there is a valid and clear a-b. So we are just waiting on the c.


As was mentioned in a previous post, an alternate count would be nested waves of a 5th wave extension.

[Raystonn]

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion
https://i.imgur.com/Un9xN3G.png

  wow so if this plays out ...

https://i.imgur.com/pbg1EEw.png

ehmmm sorry I couldn't resist  

serious question now: some weeks ago I stumbled upon a BTC long-term wave count from http://www.elliottwave.com/ in which they labelled the december high as a [V], predicting a massive retracement to early 2013 levels. By the way, during the July-August 2013 rise the same guys were swearing that it was a B correction, and soon bitcoin would have fallen in a terrible C wave... we all know how it ended!!
so question is: could the whole Gox affair, and in particular the infamous willy bot (which seems to have started its operation around that time), have played some major role in heavily distorting market dynamics ? Have you (Ryan or any other EW master) been surprised back then by the price evolution e.g. by some evident EW rule (or at least guideline) violation which in hindsight could have been attributed to this massive market manipulation??

No rules were broken, bent or otherwise. The chart still counts out in a valid count since the April 2013 high. As I said in my quoted text, the $1163 BS high can be either a completed cycle (as stated by EWI) or the 3 of [III] where [ I ] was the $32 high.

Indeed I was caught off guard initially. I thought we would get a standard ABC due to the huge rise we saw, and have a C that ended above $32, but below $50. Price ended up drawing out a perfect triangle on Bitstamp, and only a weak wave-E on Gox, then we were off.
I don't know that it was manipulation, per-se, in that correction, but it definitely set in stone in some peoples hearts that Bitcoin could not go down, and especially go into the price territory of the previous high.This thinking will eventually be futile. If not during this bear market then possibly the next, but it WILL happen.

We are currently in (C).  It looks close to ending, perhaps near 30x.  We should then resume our bull market with (I), right?  Where are we in terms of SuperCycles?

Thanks

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion
https://i.imgur.com/Un9xN3G.png

Interesting. This chart would imply a [I] that is very much larger than the [III], no? The earliest price I see for the start of [I] would be 0.04951. From that to 31.91 is massively larger than the labeled [III], which is supposed to be the largest. How do we deal with this discrepancy?

EW is price based, so the rise in 2011, while astronomical on a percentage basis, is not nearly as big on a Dollar basis. Also, 3 cannot be the shortest wave, but it does not have to be the largest wave either. In most bubbles during Bitcoins' short history, the 5th wave is by far the largest wave however, for intraday waves it is not the same story.

I don't think you can truly stick with a linear interpretation of price for something with exponential growth, like Bitcoin.  That would imply close to $30 of price increase for wave [V], which is completely wrong.

$30 is definitely not even a little bit likely, but it's not necessarily "wrong". Following an asset like stocks, where the 5th wave == the 1st wave by price, that is exactly what it means. But many have said it, and it's true... Bitcoin doesn't trade like a stock!
Bitcoin doesn't trade like a stock in that, it trades more like a commodity, like gold. The 5th wave is usually the biggest, but still with less power than the 3. Also, remember that there is no rule about 5th waves... The 3rd wave is already the biggest (Or at least not the smallest) so the 5th can go up a long way. Almost indefinitely, but there still must be a top, somewhere.

Any chance you want to do an analysis using log(price) instead of price?

[myself]

i made something in log(logarithmic) scale so some of you can think/ponder about it and other to flame about it



info to read if you need to http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fibonacciretracement.asp


have a nice day

if u like log i post this there, enjoy 

[h3speros]

Right now, I still believe this is the right count. There is a new tool in this chart (time expansion), and so far we are right on time. Wave-2's usually last anywhere from 61.8% to 161.8% of the time taken by the wave-1. We are right at that 61.8% and there is a valid and clear a-b. So we are just waiting on the c.


As was mentioned in a previous post, an alternate count would be nested waves of a 5th wave extension.

when do you consider that this is not valid anymore? if we go below $390?

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

Right now, I still believe this is the right count. There is a new tool in this chart (time expansion), and so far we are right on time. Wave-2's usually last anywhere from 61.8% to 161.8% of the time taken by the wave-1. We are right at that 61.8% and there is a valid and clear a-b. So we are just waiting on the c.


As was mentioned in a previous post, an alternate count would be nested waves of a 5th wave extension.

when do you consider that this is not valid anymore? if we go below $390?

We did go below $390, broke support at $392(if it was support) and I think we are headed to $380.

[h3speros]

when do you consider that this is not valid anymore? if we go below $390?

We did go below $390, broke support at $392(if it was support) and I think we are headed to $380.

i mean in this count (abc)

[RyNinDaCleM]

Right now, I still believe this is the right count. There is a new tool in this chart (time expansion), and so far we are right on time. Wave-2's usually last anywhere from 61.8% to 161.8% of the time taken by the wave-1. We are right at that 61.8% and there is a valid and clear a-b. So we are just waiting on the c.


As was mentioned in a previous post, an alternate count would be nested waves of a 5th wave extension.

when do you consider that this is not valid anymore? if we go below $390?

We did go below $390, broke support at $392(if it was support) and I think we are headed to $380.

Well, a wave-B can make new lows. But revision with an extension would likely be the better choice here.

I have to move my PC to another room, then I'll get an updated count out.

[RyNinDaCleM]

This is an option


Divergence continues to get bigger so this could end the 1 very soon. $380ish is likely a safe bet (of course it is... It was my original target ) But that ABC expectation is still there, it's just a little lower now.
I should've known that the 5 from a few days ago wasn't it. Look at the b in that triangle. Do you see 5 waves or 3?

Edit:
A target for the iv would be around 393-394

[h3speros]

Divergence continues to get bigger so this could end the 1 very soon. $380ish is likely a safe bet (of course it is... It was my original target ) But that ABC expectation is still there, it's just a little lower now.
I should've known that the 5 from a few days ago wasn't it. Look at the b in that triangle. Do you see 5 waves or 3?

idk, don't ask me =)

btw, do you consider that this hidden bullish divergence has any importance?

[myself]

it can go even lower



that wick on the weekly is huge




on the long term the bounces were sucker rally

https://i.imgur.com/z2fVH98.png *


* spam orders are excluded

[Tzupy]

...
btw, do you consider that this hidden bullish divergence has any importance?
...

To me that looks like hidden bearish.