Critical Levels - EW analysis

[chessnut]

All I get from the last discussions is that 2xx is still possible in the longer term. Thats good news to me

So really I dont know where or when the bottom is gonna be, but Ill probably see when we get there. he only guideline I can use it to expect a fair retrace of 0.618 or 0.5.

Sorry if I missed it, 0.618 or 0.5 with respect to which figure?

We were only talking about the correction from 2150. has nothing to do with the 2xx situation sorry 

looking at my recent chart the fib0.5 and 0.618 are at 2050 and 2030, or 336 and 332.

[MAbtc]

Thanks, that's super helpful for understanding what you guys are talking about.  Graphs really do the talking!

Np!

Here is a nice chart by analyst DanV of a situation consistent with the interpretation on this thread. DanV tends to find the most detailed and valid outcomes to situations, while sometimes not the simplest.  All of the EW analysts are calling for at least a medium term bottom here.
This situation would be easy to identify if it unfolds.

https://www.tradingview.com/v/7ssFMZmi/

That chart is invalid before he even posted it. LOL 

Y Absolutely, unequivocally MUST be equal to, or longer than X unless Y is a triangle.
Not to mention X must be shorter than W which already invalidated this count as of $338 on the way down to $275.

RyNinDaCleM, I am unaware of these WXY rules. These are hard rules? Can you elaborate/point to a source for this?

[chessnut]

If we get another weak wave to 2080 or so and then a break out of this wedge it would be an excellent buy opportunity, stop under 2080 for scalpers. This could be the end of the correction that is why it is worth scalping. If not, the bounce should be big enough to make a reasonable profit or break even, so it is worth the risk buying a breakout here.

[RyNinDaCleM]

Thanks, that's super helpful for understanding what you guys are talking about.  Graphs really do the talking!

Np!

Here is a nice chart by analyst DanV of a situation consistent with the interpretation on this thread. DanV tends to find the most detailed and valid outcomes to situations, while sometimes not the simplest.  All of the EW analysts are calling for at least a medium term bottom here.
This situation would be easy to identify if it unfolds.

https://www.tradingview.com/v/7ssFMZmi/

That chart is invalid before he even posted it. LOL 

Y Absolutely, unequivocally MUST be equal to, or longer than X unless Y is a triangle.
Not to mention X must be shorter than W which already invalidated this count as of $338 on the way down to $275.

RyNinDaCleM, I am unaware of these WXY rules. These are hard rules? Can you elaborate/point to a source for this?

http://stocata.org/ta_en/elliott4.html

[chessnut]

http://stocata.org/ta_en/elliott4.html

This source says that wave A in a zig zag must be impulsive? Ive heard a few EW analysts say this before but my experience tells me its not true. correctives literally have no motive they can produce some real curve balls.

[Carra23]

All I get from the last discussions is that 2xx is still possible in the longer term. Thats good news to me

So really I dont know where or when the bottom is gonna be, but Ill probably see when we get there. he only guideline I can use it to expect a fair retrace of 0.618 or 0.5.

Sorry if I missed it, 0.618 or 0.5 with respect to which figure?

We were only talking about the correction from 2150. has nothing to do with the 2xx situation sorry  

looking at my recent chart the fib0.5 and 0.618 are at 2050 and 2030, or 336 and 332.

Messed up while following it somewhere. All the multiple wave counts confuses me. Its at 344 now so a 10 point drop over the wekend sounds quite reasonable. I would have expected more though.

[RyNinDaCleM]

http://stocata.org/ta_en/elliott4.html

This source says that wave A in a zig zag must be impulsive? Ive heard a few EW analysts say this before but my experience tells me its not true. correctives literally have no motive they can produce some real curve balls.

Zig-zags are 5-3-5 (impulse-corrective-impulse) a corrective structure built from impulsive intent and lack the follow through to get that 5th wave.

I understand that Bitcoin throws out some real shit at times, but this is truth. ANY EW site will say the same about Zig-Zags being 5-3-5. When you have a 3-3-5 ABC where C is far longer than a flats' C allows for, It isn't a zig-zag just because it's not a flat. Bitcoin is heavily reactionary. Mainly because it's full of novice traders that don't know better. You can get a weak A (due to reluctance to sell) and the C will be far deeper than it should simply because of panic and herd mentality. This is mainly on intraday time frames. Larger picture counts don't have this phenomena because the moves are much larger so take much more volume to do the same. 

What I mean about reactionary is that many traders don't know whats coming next. So their idea of a "trade plan" is to take the next big move, and follow. This is usually futile since it may or may not continue. They tend to be the C-wave panic crew or the power behind the 3 of 3.

I really hope this all makes sense from the psychology side of EW.

[chessnut]

http://stocata.org/ta_en/elliott4.html

This source says that wave A in a zig zag must be impulsive? Ive heard a few EW analysts say this before but my experience tells me its not true. correctives literally have no motive they can produce some real curve balls.

Zig-zags are 5-3-5 (impulse-corrective-impulse) a corrective structure built from impulsive intent and lack the follow through to get that 5th wave.

I understand that Bitcoin throws out some real shit at times, but this is truth. ANY EW site will say the same about Zig-Zags being 5-3-5. When you have a 3-3-5 ABC where C is far longer than a flats' C allows for, It isn't a zig-zag just because it's not a flat. Bitcoin is heavily reactionary. Mainly because it's full of novice traders that don't know better. You can get a weak A (due to reluctance to sell) and the C will be far deeper than it should simply because of panic and herd mentality. This is mainly on intraday time frames. Larger picture counts don't have this phenomena because the moves are much larger so take much more volume to do the same.  

What I mean about reactionary is that many traders don't know whats coming next. So their idea of a "trade plan" is to take the next big move, and follow. This is usually futile since it may or may not continue. They tend to be the C-wave panic crew or the power behind the 3 of 3.

I really hope this all makes sense from the psychology side of EW.

Actually I think EW works in any large liquid system on the assumption that traders haven't got a damn clue. buying at the top is irrational, and there's only one kind of irrational imo   certainly traders are not actively forming EW patterns as if that was the goal.

I think the analyst that sees all zig-zags must be 5-3-5 is overcomplicating things where there is a better explanation imo. If its difficult to identify 5-3-5 they might see instead (5-3-5)-x-(5-3-5) for the sake of that rule where reducing to that scale of fractal is not ideal. There are too many solutions to counting complex correctives in xyz formations. we could simply say (5-3-5)-x-(5-3-5) = 3-3-3.

Imo I think we just have to remember the roots of EW analysis. the fib sequence. We only use the two ratios from the sequence, the first two, 1/2 and 2/3. these are the strongest harmonic ratios that occur everywhere just as the golden ratio does, for example in music every note is derived from a single pitch and the ratios 1/2 and 2/3. All other ratios we use are actually just terms of these. We observe that movement in the direction of the trend are of 2/3 (3 up, 2 down) and corrective 1/2 (2 down, 1 up)

EDIT: of coarse my point being that 1/2 ratio leads to a 3 wave species and a 2/3 ratio leads to 5 wave species.

EDIT AGAIN: and I see that 5-3-5 woud actually correctly describe the direction of the trend within a correction but where a correction may be summarised to xyz-X-abc etc... practically we can consider the whole nature of a corrective as non impusive when we are not gifted impulsives.

[RyNinDaCleM]

http://stocata.org/ta_en/elliott4.html

This source says that wave A in a zig zag must be impulsive? Ive heard a few EW analysts say this before but my experience tells me its not true. correctives literally have no motive they can produce some real curve balls.

Zig-zags are 5-3-5 (impulse-corrective-impulse) a corrective structure built from impulsive intent and lack the follow through to get that 5th wave.

I understand that Bitcoin throws out some real shit at times, but this is truth. ANY EW site will say the same about Zig-Zags being 5-3-5. When you have a 3-3-5 ABC where C is far longer than a flats' C allows for, It isn't a zig-zag just because it's not a flat. Bitcoin is heavily reactionary. Mainly because it's full of novice traders that don't know better. You can get a weak A (due to reluctance to sell) and the C will be far deeper than it should simply because of panic and herd mentality. This is mainly on intraday time frames. Larger picture counts don't have this phenomena because the moves are much larger so take much more volume to do the same.  

What I mean about reactionary is that many traders don't know whats coming next. So their idea of a "trade plan" is to take the next big move, and follow. This is usually futile since it may or may not continue. They tend to be the C-wave panic crew or the power behind the 3 of 3.

I really hope this all makes sense from the psychology side of EW.

Actually I think EW works in any large liquid system on the assumption that traders haven't got a damn clue. buying at the top is irrational, and there's only one kind of irrational imo   certainly traders are not actively forming EW patterns as if that was the goal.

I think the analyst that sees all zig-zags must be 5-3-5 is overcomplicating things where there is a better explanation imo. If its difficult to identify 5-3-5 they might see instead (5-3-5)-x-(5-3-5) for the sake of that rule where reducing to that scale of fractal is not ideal. There are too many solutions to counting complex correctives in xyz formations. we could simply say (5-3-5)-x-(5-3-5) = 3-3-3.

Agreed and agreed! Except the over complicating things...
EW works because of that emotion, and the waves are formed because of the effect that emotion has on them.. Irrationality. This is what I meant by reactionary. "Oh no! The market is leaving me behind" So they buy. Or "Oh no! The market is tanking" so they sell. This sets in motion the waves we observe and why the price doesn't go in a straight line, except sometimes sideways

Exactly! 3-3-3 is a WXY. The simplification of a complex correction. Synonymous with reducing fractions. Rather than ABC-X-ABC, you just label as WXY where W and Y are both ABC with a three wave X as a counter trend move of the correction.

Zig-zag is just the name of an object that has a defined set of characteristics. Whereas "ABC" or "WXY" is more of a library of objects and can mean a broader variety of counts. ABC only has two members. One of which guarantees one more move in the same direction. That is a zig-zag. When you have a five wave move off a top (minor or major), you are guaranteed at least another five wave move after the B completes. Flats don't have that luxury. That's why zig-zags are absolute in their definition and what should be expected through the duration.

[chessnut]

If we get another weak wave to 2080 or so and then a break out of this wedge it would be an excellent buy opportunity, stop under 2080 for scalpers. This could be the end of the correction that is why it is worth scalping. If not, the bounce should be big enough to make a reasonable profit or break even, so it is worth the risk buying a breakout here.

if you took this trade down low its time to move your stop loss to breakeven. still a fair chance we will see further downside her, but good news is that the beast is cornered.

two thing can happen here.

[chessnut]

This is another nice count of wave greater C by Ronald Bringer that is consistent with my forecast.

[chessnut]

So the bounce has been denied leaving by process of elimination just one most probable situation left.

Chances are we will be offered a great buy signal in the 2050 area. fingers crossed.

[biggus dickus]

This is another nice count of wave greater C by Ronald Bringer that is consistent with my forecast.

So you think the price will eventually go below $250?

[chessnut]

So you think the price will eventually go below $250?

I am catering for both situations. The conclusion I came to at the beginning of the thread we that we need wave V. this wave V would either be shallow or truncated because wave III was extended. Then I suggested wave V came in place of wave B to explain bearish price action, but really both truncated V and abc (IV) are both still possible.

Why I say it is consistent with my analysis is that I see a need for a rally to around 480 in either case.

[chessnut]

current count

[chessnut]

with the abc correction turning out very shallow it seems this would be a good breakout signal.

[prophetx]

This is another nice count of wave greater C by Ronald Bringer that is consistent with my forecast.

So you think the price will eventually go below $250?

it is possible that BTC operates on some sort of seasonal correlation, and but i think this one is a little to obvious to happen. of course it would be nice if it did since it is such a short time frame and would enable  one to almost 2x his position

[Alonzo Ewing]

This is a widely accepted count. We cant be sure if a larger correction after wave V will be wave II or wave IV. Wave II would be absolutely phenominal.

Does the length of wave iv have any bearing on the height of wave v?  The current wave iv seems very long to me.

[chessnut]

Does the length of wave iv have any bearing on the height of wave v?  The current wave iv seems very long to me.

The size of wave V is affected by the size of wave III. the Maximum price of wave V is affected by the depth of wave IV. The deeper Iv the lower the extreme of V will be.

[Alonzo Ewing]

The size of wave V is affected by the size of wave III. 

The bigger the wave III the bigger the wave V?