Critical Levels - EW analysis

[phoenix1]

What do you make of this latest move, Chessnut and Ryan ?
We were due a retracement for the bear case, but this look like an impulse  

[sickLifeObv]

I think we could be in wave C of the ABC retracement after the previous dump. In a corrective wave, subwave C can be a 5-wave pattern (of which 1-3-5 are impulses). So this does non invalidate the count!
Correct me if I am wrong, I am kinda newbie in EW.

[damiano]

I think we could be in wave C of the ABC retracement after the previous dump. In a corrective wave, subwave C can be a 5-wave pattern (of which 1-3-5 are impulses). So this does non invalidate the count!
Correct me if I am wrong, I am kinda newbie in EW.

If that's so then this would be the last wave of impulse which would lead to the drop

[phoenix1]

Yes, Wave C of an A-B-C would take the form of 5 waves (I believe that is a firm rule).
But to me the proportions seem very stretched for that count. I think that would make the consolidation at $226 wave iv of C, and it looks too long timewise  

Looks to me more possibly like wave A of a larger zig-zag (5-3-5) correction
(edited to reflect my relative lack of knowledge)



 

[RyNinDaCleM]

Yes, Wave C of an A-B-C would take the form of 5 waves (I believe that is a firm rule).
But to me the proportions seem very stretched for that count. I think that would make the consolidation at $226 wave iv of C, and it looks too long timewise  

Looks to me more like wave A of a larger zig-zag (5-3-5) correction


 

It does look more like an impulse now. I had two likely counts and it seems like the red one below may be the one to watch. Impulse is still valid in the bear case. A wave-A can be 5 waves. Invalidation of the yellow count occurs at 240.58. And invalidation of red is at 262.45, a long way away. Target for red is not updated to reflect the shallower than expected A, so the target shown is a little high. Might get ~236 which would invalidate the yellow and make this bear happy


Edited the invalidations in bold

[phoenix1]

Thanks for the confirmation Ryan. Your red count is what I was referring too. But you do it so much better 

[Tzupy]

I agree with Ryan's scenarios, my favorite one is going up to ~240$ and starting the crash from there.
Since the rise to 262$ was sort of compressed, the descent was also lower amplitude than I expected.

[JustAnotherSheep]

It does look more like an impulse now. I had two likely counts and it seems like the red one below may be the one to watch. Impulse is still valid in the bear case. A wave-A can be 5 waves. Invalidation of the yellow count occurs at either 232.38 or 233.90 depending on what you believe to be the end of wave-i of 1 of (3) of III. And invalidation of red is at 253.05, a long way away. Target for red is not updated to reflect the shallower than expected A, so the target shown is a little high. Might get ~236 which would invalidate the yellow and make this bear happy

Noob question: How come the yellow and red counts are invalidated at the end of wave i and 1 respectively, and not the top of 1 and (1)? I thought Wave 2 corrections could maximally retrace the entirety of the preceding wave. Or have I missed some guideline/rule?

[BldSwtTrs]

It does look more like an impulse now.

What are you paying attention for in order to say what looks like an impulse and what not?

[RyNinDaCleM]

It does look more like an impulse now. I had two likely counts and it seems like the red one below may be the one to watch. Impulse is still valid in the bear case. A wave-A can be 5 waves. Invalidation of the yellow count occurs at either 232.38 or 233.90 depending on what you believe to be the end of wave-i of 1 of (3) of III. And invalidation of red is at 253.05, a long way away. Target for red is not updated to reflect the shallower than expected A, so the target shown is a little high. Might get ~236 which would invalidate the yellow and make this bear happy

Noob question: How come the yellow and red counts are invalidated at the end of wave i and 1 respectively, and not the top of 1 and (1)? I thought Wave 2 corrections could maximally retrace the entirety of the preceding wave. Or have I missed some guideline/rule?

You didn't miss anything.  I was tired and mistyped (mis-thought?). You are correct. These are both wave-2 scenarios so are invalidated at the beginning of the respective wave-1's. I think it was that weak red 4 that I was talking about last night with some people that had me discombobulated for a minute thinking about invalidation by overlap. I will correct my previous post now.

[RyNinDaCleM]

It does look more like an impulse now.

What are you paying attention for in order to say what looks like an impulse and what not?

5 waves that follow the three strict rules of EW.
Wave-2 never retraces more than 100% of wave-1
Wave-3 is never the shortest
Wave-4 never enters the price territory of wave-1

Some other things to look a are the time spent in the corrections for waves 2 and 4. These are proportional to each other in this case, so it is a valid impulse.

[chessnut]

Ryan has put it well but there is one more count I see possible, DanV is counting this one too.

It's a heavy running flat, not unexpected in case of ii of III

[phoenix1]

Ryan has put it well but there is one more count I see possible, DanV is counting this one too.

It's a heavy running flat, not unexpected in case of ii of III

Hmmm ... now that's the count I could not see - one that would allow the move from the low to be an impulse and a C.
I could not find an proprotionate A and B.
Thanks Chessnut

That's a pretty bearish count, right ?

EDIT : If you don't mind could you rank these 3 options in terms of 'bearishness'
I have some ideas, but I am sure you know better

Another Edit : For Dan's count, the A looks a bit small, no?

[RyNinDaCleM]

Ryan has put it well but there is one more count I see possible, DanV is counting this one too.

It's a heavy running flat, not unexpected in case of ii of III

Hmmm ... now that's the count I could not see - one that would allow the move from the low to be an impulse and a C.
I could not find an proprotionate A and B.
Thanks Chessnut

That's a pretty bearish count, right ?

EDIT : If you don't mind could you rank these 3 options in terms of 'bearishness'
I have some ideas, but I am sure you know better

Another Edit : For Dan's count, the A looks a bit small, no?

I would have to say they are all fairly equally doomy
I'm giving an 85% chance we see double digits in this bear market. Bold, I know, but it just doesn't look good for any bullish scenario to develop in the near to mid term.

chessnut does make a good point about running flats in ii of 3's but it just doesn't look right. B isn't supposed to be more than 200% of A but in Bitcoin, I have noticed what is typical in larger markets isn't always what is typical here. So I won't discount that count based on that.

[Xiaoxiao]

So it looks like this will break 230 at least and maybe test 240-260 before another down swing?

[phoenix1]

I would have to say they are all fairly equally doomy
I'm giving an 85% chance we see double digits in this bear market. Bold, I know, but it just doesn't look good for any bullish scenario to develop in the near to mid term.

chessnut does make a good point about running flats in ii of 3's but it just doesn't look right. B isn't supposed to be more than 200% of A but in Bitcoin, I have noticed what is typical in larger markets isn't always what is typical here. So I won't discount that count based on that.

Damn ... need to recalibrate my abacus - it's only giving a 77% chance of double digits 

[btc4lifer]

https://www.tradingview.com/x/OPGN1RtV/

@chessnut can you please explain how the ABC conbination in your chart is able to be a flat and have a largish volume event happen for the B.

Isn't the point of a flat that A only has three waves due to lack of follow through in the market and that B is a correction of nearly 100% of A?

I'm not trying to troll at all, just trying to learn and understand EW.

[RyNinDaCleM]

I would have to say they are all fairly equally doomy
I'm giving an 85% chance we see double digits in this bear market. Bold, I know, but it just doesn't look good for any bullish scenario to develop in the near to mid term.

chessnut does make a good point about running flats in ii of 3's but it just doesn't look right. B isn't supposed to be more than 200% of A but in Bitcoin, I have noticed what is typical in larger markets isn't always what is typical here. So I won't discount that count based on that.

Damn ... need to recalibrate my abacus - it's only giving a 77% chance of double digits 

I'll admit, that number is a bit arbitrary but based on how many possible counts there are and how many, when projected out using fibo, hit 100 or lower, there is a very good chance it will. These projections do not take into account any excessive panic either, so projections hitting ~110 could also see <$100. So yes, "85%" is my opinion and not based on maths.

img snipped...

@chessnut can you please explain how the ABC conbination in your chart is able to be a flat and have a largish volume event happen for the B.

Isn't the point of a flat that A only has three waves due to lack of follow through in the market and that B is a correction of nearly 100% of A?

I'm not trying to troll at all, just trying to learn and understand EW.

Actually, that B is >200% of A, but I'm just Blahblling

[HeliKopterBen]

I'm giving an 85% chance we see double digits in this bear market. Bold, I know, but it just doesn't look good for any bullish scenario to develop in the near to mid term.

You might as well make it an even 90%  .  I would give about a 20% chance of double digits in this bear market but about a 70% chance of lower prices from here.  It's hard to say that a market will drop 56.5% from current prices when the current price is already down 80%, even with bitcoin.  I believe there is a decent chance that 200-210 support holds and prices rise from here back to ATH.  I won't be surprised if it happens.

[chessnut]

@chessnut can you please explain how the ABC conbination in your chart is able to be a flat and have a largish volume event happen for the B.

Isn't the point of a flat that A only has three waves due to lack of follow through in the market and that B is a correction of nearly 100% of A?

I'm not trying to troll at all, just trying to learn and understand EW.

Hey,

A triangle is an example of 5 wave of 3, they occur in wave B or iv position, they are not considered impulsive, it is just a phenomena that genuine triangles are observed to have 5 waves of 3. The triangle in this count is not a critical part of the count, there are other ways to get around that, but the triangle is good form.

Wave B may retrace more than wave A, the definition of a running flat is where wave B goes a step further. They are not common, only in markets of particularly strong rate of change, wave iii is one example of this kind of situation.

Yeah, it would make a big wave B if thats what it is, I cant say much for the volume.

We have little choice of alternate counts in this situation because the larger time frames are just excellent form. We are assuming that we are in an impulse and that it s not complete.