Critical Levels - EW analysis

[Afrikoin]

I think people misunderstand EW. Excuse me, i've just been absorbed in MBTI personality types in what i would characterize as a rabbit hole. I am quite possibly an  ENFP. This could partially explain why there are such differing opinions on it. Everyone is looking at it different.

Anyone who says it has no value (EW) is rightly entitled to their opinion, but, should also respect others as well. Maybe they see it and you dont. Which is fine anyways. We dont all have to see it the same way, or even agree. What is important is that it works for *some of us.

[1714850870]

1714850870

[1714850870]

1714850870

[1714850870]

1714850870

[ElectricMucus]

The elliot wave theory and principle are largely based on the observation that market movement are based less on fundamentals than crowd psychology, the phenomena that most people draw more comfort believing in what others believe than believing more logical alternatives. This has rational and irrational impact on fundamentals that economists do not understand. however, price in a vacuum leaves only a few mechanisms to determine price action, and we find that the key emotions of fear and greed in a wave system (an equilibrium system) are irrational forces that always unfold in the same nature because of human psychology (which doesnt change). This way EW is more about how the market moves than predicting the future, and we realise that there may be multiple solutions to a real problem but they must be finite in context of robust logic.

EW analysis is not about trends, its about structure and key levels. Blind extrapolation implied in the term 'trend' is a fallacy in our analysis.

Simple harmonic ratios are found everywhere in nature, you cannot escape them they are necessary and robust and in concept they are perfectly defined. In this respect the EW theory cannot model random movement because truly random movement is not in simple harmonic terms (even so it may produce order in harmonic terms). The market is not random this is obvious and easy to prove, while it has weak sudo-random components. This is why the EW principle is composed of hard rules but also many guidelines because the market only presents confirmation of the principle in varying quality (but often good quality). maths provides us the principle where stats/evidence provides the theory. The theory is difficult to prove because it is a quantum system, scientists have battled providing evidence that an electron may be in two places at the same time for the same reason, but thats how it must be and thats how it is. Even so the theory put aside, the principle is enough for an effective trading strategy just as philosophers divide into camps of deontological and causational ethics, they are both valid and effective.

paragraph 1: Yes, yes and yes, on that basis EW can work, however not always, and that is what the current "wave within wave, within wave approach" that labels every spike and dip does wrong imho.
A better system simply should define the model more rigorously and if it doesn't fit don't predict any result. (Don't trade then or use something else)

paragraph 2: Yes, trends are one step behind of what EW does.

paragraph 3: No. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Certain ratios, in particular in flower phyllotaxis are there because they are a mathematical necessity. They happen because hormone balances in the plant work in a certain way, and with that for the desired properties to be met the leaves and pistils must grow in a way that describes that geometric figure. The same can not be said for other cases.
Even more if the system is disturbed the same hormonal balances lead to a whole different pattern because the system continues with the same ruleset leading to a different outcome.
And once more there are a whole bunch of ratios which lead to phyllotaxis patterns which are all irrational and come from a generalization of the golden ratio formula.
In other cases these examples commonly perpetuated are simply wrong the nautilus shell for instance is not a golden spiral, it is a logarithmic spiral.

I see the obsession with golden ratios and Fibonacci numbers simply as superstition/numerology. For instance there are empirical relations between the model using the golden ratio sequence (but also other ratios) and the euler spiral with flower phyllotaxis. I've yet to see a scientific paper done with rigor outlining any such empirical relation when it comes to price charts.


Besides the whole golden ratio/Fibonacci stuff isn't even in EW theory itself, it's just applied because it is supposedly a "natural fit" (see above).

[sidhujag]

The elliot wave theory and principle are largely based on the observation that market movement are based less on fundamentals than crowd psychology, the phenomena that most people draw more comfort believing in what others believe than believing more logical alternatives. This has rational and irrational impact on fundamentals that economists do not understand. however, price in a vacuum leaves only a few mechanisms to determine price action, and we find that the key emotions of fear and greed in a wave system (an equilibrium system) are irrational forces that always unfold in the same nature because of human psychology (which doesnt change). This way EW is more about how the market moves than predicting the future, and we realise that there may be multiple solutions to a real problem but they must be finite in context of robust logic.

EW analysis is not about trends, its about structure and key levels. Blind extrapolation implied in the term 'trend' is a fallacy in our analysis.

Simple harmonic ratios are found everywhere in nature, you cannot escape them they are necessary and robust and in concept they are perfectly defined. In this respect the EW theory cannot model random movement because truly random movement is not in simple harmonic terms (even so it may produce order in harmonic terms). The market is not random this is obvious and easy to prove, while it has weak sudo-random components. This is why the EW principle is composed of hard rules but also many guidelines because the market only presents confirmation of the principle in varying quality (but often good quality). maths provides us the principle where stats/evidence provides the theory. The theory is difficult to prove because it is a quantum system, scientists have battled providing evidence that an electron may be in two places at the same time for the same reason, but thats how it must be and thats how it is. Even so the theory put aside, the principle is enough for an effective trading strategy just as philosophers divide into camps of deontological and causational ethics, they are both valid and effective.

paragraph 1: Yes, yes and yes, on that basis EW can work, however not always, and that is what the current "wave within wave, within wave approach" that labels every spike and dip does wrong imho.
A better system simply should define the model more rigorously and if it doesn't fit don't predict any result. (Don't trade then or use something else)

paragraph 2: Yes, trends are one step behind of what EW does.

paragraph 3: No. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Certain ratios, in particular in flower phyllotaxis are there because they are a mathematical necessity. They happen because hormone balances in the plant work in a certain way, and with that for the desired properties to be met the leaves and pistils must grow in a way that describes that geometric figure. The same can not be said for other cases.
Even more if the system is disturbed the same hormonal balances lead to a whole different pattern because the system continues with the same ruleset leading to a different outcome.
And once more there are a whole bunch of ratios which lead to phyllotaxis patterns which are all irrational and come from a generalization of the golden ratio formula.
In other cases these examples commonly perpetuated are simply wrong the nautilus shell for instance is not a golden spiral, it is a logarithmic spiral.

I see the obsession with golden ratios and Fibonacci numbers simply as superstition/numerology. For instance there are empirical relations between the model using the golden ratio sequence (but also other ratios) and the euler spiral with flower phyllotaxis. I've yet to see a scientific paper done with rigor outlining any such empirical relation when it comes to price charts.


Besides the whole golden ratio/Fibonacci stuff isn't even in EW theory itself, it's just applied because it is supposedly a "natural fit" (see above).

IMO price is a phenomenon of greed and fear which itself is a result of human decisions (in herds) which are repeated over and over. Usually not repeating but rhyming kind of like patterns just transformed in different ways, the people that can see the way its transformed can recognize a pattern is taking place. EW is just another tool to help recognize such pattern transformations because we work well within a ruleset because we "rule" out any noise from other forms of pattern recognition. Obviously its not an optimal strategy (holy grail) but aslong as it provides an edge, and im sure it does then the rest of the work is controlling greed/fear of the trader which is a whole nother problem on its own.

[chessnut]

I think people misunderstand EW. Excuse me, i've just been absorbed in MBTI personality types in what i would characterize as a rabbit hole. I am quite possibly an  ENFP. This could partially explain why there are such differing opinions on it. Everyone is looking at it different.

Anyone who says it has no value (EW) is rightly entitled to their opinion, but, should also respect others as well. Maybe they see it and you dont. Which is fine anyways. We dont all have to see it the same way, or even agree. What is important is that it works for *some of us.

"(INTJ) you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion"  

this sideways appears to be a triangle, supported by the bigger picture it should be wave y of iv. it will be interesting to see how it forms over the next 48 hours and we might get a clear long signal.

EDIT: If we break down through 1685 or so it would mean any hypothetical triangle is broken down and at that point we would have to re-evaluate the bigger picture.

[Fakhoury]

I think people misunderstand EW. Excuse me, i've just been absorbed in MBTI personality types in what i would characterize as a rabbit hole. I am quite possibly an  ENFP. This could partially explain why there are such differing opinions on it. Everyone is looking at it different.

Anyone who says it has no value (EW) is rightly entitled to their opinion, but, should also respect others as well. Maybe they see it and you dont. Which is fine anyways. We dont all have to see it the same way, or even agree. What is important is that it works for *some of us.

"(INTJ) you are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion"  

this sideways appears to be a triangle, supported by the bigger picture it should be wave y of iv. it will be interesting to see how it forms over the next 48 hours and we might get a clear long signal.

EDIT: If we break down through 1685 or so it would mean any hypothetical triangle is broken down and at that point we would have to re-evaluate the bigger picture.

But overall you are bullish Chessnut, right ?

[chessnut]

paragraph 1: Yes, yes and yes, on that basis EW can work, however not always, and that is what the current "wave within wave, within wave approach" that labels every spike and dip does wrong imho.
A better system simply should define the model more rigorously and if it doesn't fit don't predict any result. (Don't trade then or use something else)

paragraph 2: Yes, trends are one step behind of what EW does.

paragraph 3: No. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Certain ratios, in particular in flower phyllotaxis are there because they are a mathematical necessity. They happen because hormone balances in the plant work in a certain way, and with that for the desired properties to be met the leaves and pistils must grow in a way that describes that geometric figure. The same can not be said for other cases.
Even more if the system is disturbed the same hormonal balances lead to a whole different pattern because the system continues with the same ruleset leading to a different outcome.
And once more there are a whole bunch of ratios which lead to phyllotaxis patterns which are all irrational and come from a generalization of the golden ratio formula.
In other cases these examples commonly perpetuated are simply wrong the nautilus shell for instance is not a golden spiral, it is a logarithmic spiral.

I see the obsession with golden ratios and Fibonacci numbers simply as superstition/numerology. For instance there are empirical relations between the model using the golden ratio sequence (but also other ratios) and the euler spiral with flower phyllotaxis. I've yet to see a scientific paper done with rigor outlining any such empirical relation when it comes to price charts.


Besides the whole golden ratio/Fibonacci stuff isn't even in EW theory itself, it's just applied because it is supposedly a "natural fit" (see above).

Fibonacci ratios are rarely exact, why should they be, but there are convincing averages especially in dow study that show on average ratios of correction are almost exactly in terms of the golden ratio.

In EW we observe the difference between deep and shallow corrections in terms of the golden ratio, 62% and 38%, because they are actually the perfect geometrical ratios to define the point where a correction is significantly deep or shallow, thats why the golden ratio is so special in many fields. its an indisputably fair ratio. 'Fairly' deep is precisely 62% in every respect, why would it be anything else? Its a strong observation that different species of waves have deep and shallow corrections, for example, primary waves are observed to correct on average to 62%.

But overall you are bullish Chessnut, right ?

Its quite a sensitive situation here but yeah I am bullish especially after a bit of bullish action here. Im going to buy back into dnaleors game when my 8hr is up.

[SebastianJu]

Fibonacci ratios are rarely exact, why should they be, but there are convincing averages especially in dow study that show on average ratios of correction are almost exactly in terms of the golden ratio.

In EW we observe the difference between deep and shallow corrections in terms of the golden ratio, 62% and 38%, because they are actually the perfect geometrical ratios to define the point where a correction is significantly deep or shallow, thats why the golden ratio is so special in many fields. its an indisputably fair ratio. 'Fairly' deep is precisely 62% in every respect, why would it be anything else? Its a strong observation that different species of waves have deep and shallow corrections, for example, primary waves are observed to correct on average to 62%.

This sounds interesting but i cant wrap my head around what you mean exactly. Can you maybe make a graphical example of how you would use the golden ratio with corrections?

Thanks!

[chessnut]

This is bullish corrective form for the time being. It could produce a triple zz.

There's a chance of this, funny how it is a fractal of the entire downtrend that I described. Triple with flat, zz and triangle.



Updated

Fibonacci ratios are rarely exact, why should they be, but there are convincing averages especially in dow study that show on average ratios of correction are almost exactly in terms of the golden ratio.

In EW we observe the difference between deep and shallow corrections in terms of the golden ratio, 62% and 38%, because they are actually the perfect geometrical ratios to define the point where a correction is significantly deep or shallow, thats why the golden ratio is so special in many fields. its an indisputably fair ratio. 'Fairly' deep is precisely 62% in every respect, why would it be anything else? Its a strong observation that different species of waves have deep and shallow corrections, for example, primary waves are observed to correct on average to 62%.

This sounds interesting but i cant wrap my head around what you mean exactly. Can you maybe make a graphical example of how you would use the golden ratio with corrections?

Thanks!

In this situation I counted the correction of this primary wave as possibly complete but as a guideline I knew to expect a deep retrace to the 62%. it came true with impressive accuracy.

[RyNinDaCleM]

I'd like to add to the Fibonacci discussion...
The reason it works when so few actually follow or even believe in such ideas is because the relationship to a measured move. These are the two most likely points that someone is willing to give up on "chasing" the price. This leads to slowing of momentum at or around these points. The reason it's usually 61.8% for wave-2 and 38.2% for a wave-4 is because this leads to fairly equal amounts of retrace, by price, during an impulse. If you forget about deep and shallow for just a second, call wave-1 a 100% move and wave 2 retraces that move by 61.8%. Wave-3 is 161.8% x the net of wave-1 and wave-4 is a retrace of 38.2% of wave-3. Now, if wave-1 was a $10 move and 2 was a $6.18 retrace, then wave-3 would be +$16.18 and wave-4 is $7.64 retrace. It's not exact but it's close.

[Morecoin Freeman]

^ Nice elaboration. Thanks.

[SebastianJu]

I'd like to add to the Fibonacci discussion...
The reason it works when so few actually follow or even believe in such ideas is because the relationship to a measured move. These are the two most likely points that someone is willing to give up on "chasing" the price. This leads to slowing of momentum at or around these points. The reason it's usually 61.8% for wave-2 and 38.2% for a wave-4 is because this leads to fairly equal amounts of retrace, by price, during an impulse. If you forget about deep and shallow for just a second, call wave-1 a 100% move and wave 2 retraces that move by 61.8%. Wave-3 is 161.8% x the net of wave-1 and wave-4 is a retrace of 38.2% of wave-3. Now, if wave-1 was a $10 move and 2 was a $6.18 retrace, then wave-3 would be +$16.18 and wave-4 is $7.64 retrace. It's not exact but it's close.

But these percents arent exactly the price, right? These fibonacci rays are drawn on up and down trends. So to the eye of a trader it should look different all the time. Why still changing there?

I often watched price of bitcoin go that way from volatile to smaller curves... at the end trading nearly stopped in comparision to before. Mostly it will drop at that point.

[chessnut]

But these percents arent exactly the price, right? These fibonacci rays are drawn on up and down trends. So to the eye of a trader it should look different all the time. Why still changing there?

I often watched price of bitcoin go that way from volatile to smaller curves... at the end trading nearly stopped in comparision to before. Mostly it will drop at that point.

I dont think there is any point in using fibonacci rays or any other visual indicator other than price action apart from illustration purposes despite the fact that the percentages used in context of EW guidelines can be remarkably accurate and complimentary to the correct count. Its a bad strategy to buy at a fibonacci level for the sake of the ratio, but to look for good form at these levels is interesting to say the least.

[chessnut]

This is the same old plan in good form. looking to reach 2000 yuan again gradually this week.

Do you trade those corrections that you yourself predict? (ie phase III to IV). I think this is what proves how much people that do technical analysis believe on their own TA. If you aren't buying on your own corrections then you'll have serious doubts about it. So will you sell from III to IV?

I only just read your comment,

Its not nearly as simple as that. Nobody is god and can predict the market unless they are going to pay the cost of shaping it, I dont think you understand what I am trying to do here, it's less than you are demanding. Yes, we try our best to predict whats going to happen in a larger sense and we go so far as to try describe the basic structure of what will probably happen but the thing is irrational, it has some choice in the matter. You cant trust the crowd to top at $320 and bottom at $270, I didnt know that was going to happen, tbh I didnt expect it to go that deep either, I just said that there would be a significant correction at this point in the structure. Trading iii-iv is risky and stupid unless we have good internal form on a reliable time frame, we dont always get that, but thats not bad TA, thats bad form/bad evidence. We didnt get a good form for wave iii, it was munted in china because of destructive margin calls. So I didnt call the top of wave iii, but none the less I was long before and on wave iii because I believed in my analysis based on good evidence. Wave iv was fairly good form in retrospect, that is useful to us now. Why should it be less valuable that I didnt predict it exactly?

[elasticband]

Given chessnut's last few weeks of bullish predictions..... and his current projections for a nice leg up, he is 100% right.... he would be be crazy and a real gambler if he tried to hit every retrace. These corrctions are not necessarily points to sell or buy but they act as indicators of where market price is going next... which to me says hodl on to your coins.

[SebastianJu]

What do you think of the current upwards trend? I bought when it went over $295 since it broke the level of 15-17th. But it went down now and i wonder if it will turn into a small crash. Though on the month chart it seems its still good in an uptrend. So am i right that the price might go down to 283$ and then goes up again? I think there is a strong resistance line at that price.

Any thoughts?

[Afrikoin]

What do you think of the current upwards trend? I bought when it went over $295 since it broke the level of 15-17th. But it went down now and i wonder if it will turn into a small crash. Though on the month chart it seems its still good in an uptrend. So am i right that the price might go down to 283$ and then goes up again? I think there is a strong resistance line at that price.

Any thoughts?

Yes, you are right. 'it might'.
It also might go lower than that.

[SebastianJu]

What do you think of the current upwards trend? I bought when it went over $295 since it broke the level of 15-17th. But it went down now and i wonder if it will turn into a small crash. Though on the month chart it seems its still good in an uptrend. So am i right that the price might go down to 283$ and then goes up again? I think there is a strong resistance line at that price.

Any thoughts?

Yes, you are right. 'it might'.
It also might go lower than that.

Should i short bitcoin? I really wonder how many traders can tell what will happen successfully. Im puzzled about how much manipulated the bitcoin market is in comparision to forex markets, for example.

[madmat]

What do you think of the current upwards trend? I bought when it went over $295 since it broke the level of 15-17th. But it went down now and i wonder if it will turn into a small crash. Though on the month chart it seems its still good in an uptrend. So am i right that the price might go down to 283$ and then goes up again? I think there is a strong resistance line at that price.

Any thoughts?

Yes, you are right. 'it might'.
It also might go lower than that.

Should i short bitcoin? I really wonder how many traders can tell what will happen successfully. Im puzzled about how much manipulated the bitcoin market is in comparision to forex markets, for example.

We just hit support, it is time to buy, not to sell.

[SebastianJu]

What do you think of the current upwards trend? I bought when it went over $295 since it broke the level of 15-17th. But it went down now and i wonder if it will turn into a small crash. Though on the month chart it seems its still good in an uptrend. So am i right that the price might go down to 283$ and then goes up again? I think there is a strong resistance line at that price.

Any thoughts?

Yes, you are right. 'it might'.
It also might go lower than that.

Should i short bitcoin? I really wonder how many traders can tell what will happen successfully. Im puzzled about how much manipulated the bitcoin market is in comparision to forex markets, for example.

We just hit support, it is time to buy, not to sell.

Thats what i think too... though you probably know the feeling when you hold and price drops.

Anyway... i know that emotions are a bad advisor. I didnt sell yet and i hop support is holding. Oh right... in my post above i named it resistance instead support.

To da moon...

[notme]

What do you think of the current upwards trend? I bought when it went over $295 since it broke the level of 15-17th. But it went down now and i wonder if it will turn into a small crash. Though on the month chart it seems its still good in an uptrend. So am i right that the price might go down to 283$ and then goes up again? I think there is a strong resistance line at that price.

Any thoughts?

What is your evidence for support at 283?  Sure, on a micro scale it seems to have bounced for now, but I don't see it in the longer term charts.