Critical Levels - EW analysis

[podyx]

We aren't going down...

[chessnut]

How do you see it's an implusle?

because the fractals i and iii divide into impulses, and iv is evidently not an impulse, therefore corrective. really the only probable explanation is that we are in an impulse.

[podyx]

You think we ever go sub 350? I'll be so fucked if we do

You still think we'll go 2280 btw?

[chessnut]

You think we ever go sub 350? I'll be so fucked if we do

You still think we'll go 2280 btw?

It seems like we still need to retest 275 after what happened last night. this price action is not consistent with a wave III count and signals hypothetical wave c of IV is complete, and we may be in the early stages of wave V. I am changing my dominant count to bearish. I have been encouraging all to be prepared for this possibility, so its a shame to hear that this affects you so much.

Wave V might be slow and volatile although should none the less present some good trades.

Yes I still think 2280 is in order for the short term.

[podyx]

You think we ever go sub 350? I'll be so fucked if we do

You still think we'll go 2280 btw?

It seems like we still need to retest 275 after what happened last night. this price action is not consistent with a wave III count and signals hypothetical wave c of IV is complete, and we may be in the early stages of wave V. I am changing my dominant count to bearish. I have been encouraging all to be prepared for this possibility, so its a shame to hear that this affects you so much.

Wave V might be slow and volatile although should none the less present some good trades.

Yes I still think 2280 is in order for the short term.

oh, wow. When do you think we'll get to sub 350??

Thanks for the posts too

[Afrikoin]

https://i.imgur.com/Zb8ukPS.png

from here

http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/2mlhax/analysis_ichimoku_clouds_that_previously_acted_as/

[chessnut]

oh, wow. When do you think we'll get to sub 350??

Thanks for the posts too

We could painfully drift for days and weeks before 350 but it will probably be broken in the swift move of wave iii.

[chessnut]

I must point out that although my dominant count has changed to bearish, there is still a possibility that wave II of hypothetical I is just expanding into a larger, deeper correction. total invalidation of wave I hypothesis is the break of the 2050 level.

All probable counts still point to lower from this point, one way or another.

[watuba]

I must point out that although my dominant count has changed to bearish, there is still a possibility that wave II of hypothetical I is just expanding into a larger, deeper correction. total invalidation of wave I hypothesis is the break of the 2050 level.

All probable counts still point to lower from this point, one way or another.

Is it still a possibility that I is iii of C, and we could we still be on wave v of C, where iv of C is just explanding into a larger, deeper correction?

[chessnut]

Is it still a possibility that I is iii of C, and we could we still be on wave v of C, where iv of C is just explanding into a larger, deeper correction?

That was the original count, that we had yet to see wave v of hypothetical C OR I to come. because of the size of hypothetical wave iv this count has lost all plausibility and is better explained by a complete impulsive with a blowout wave v. There are only two plausible counts left, that we have begun wave V to retest 270, or that we are in wave II of the primary (incomplete) to new all time highs. If we pass 2000 yuan, wave II is invalidated. If we pass 3000 yuan (practically 2800 or so) then wave V, $270 retest is invalidated. big spread but quite simple. This agrees with some very important trend lone degrees that pass over around 3000 yuan, signalling a breakout at that level.

[RyNinDaCleM]

Is it still a possibility that I is iii of C, and we could we still be on wave v of C, where iv of C is just explanding into a larger, deeper correction?

That was the original count, that we had yet to see wave v of hypothetical C OR I to come. because of the size of hypothetical wave iv this count has lost all plausibility and is better explained by a complete impulsive with a blowout wave v. There are only two plausible counts left, that we have begun wave V to retest 270, or that we are in wave II of the primary (incomplete) to new all time highs. If we pass 2000 yuan, wave II is invalidated. If we pass 3000 yuan (practically 2800 or so) then wave V, $270 retest is invalidated. big spread but quite simple. This agrees with some very important trend lone degrees that pass over around 3000 yuan, signalling a breakout at that level.

I wouldn't necessarily call 3000 as invalidation of any V down. We could be in some kind of double or triple zig-zag/3's that would certainly rise to or above 3000 and still be a valid IV.

Also, (I don't want to be a stickler, but) 2000 would not invalidate your I/II count. The beginning of I was at ~1900. That would be the invalidation point since II can retrace a full 100% of I, but not more.

[chessnut]

Is it still a possibility that I is iii of C, and we could we still be on wave v of C, where iv of C is just explanding into a larger, deeper correction?

That was the original count, that we had yet to see wave v of hypothetical C OR I to come. because of the size of hypothetical wave iv this count has lost all plausibility and is better explained by a complete impulsive with a blowout wave v. There are only two plausible counts left, that we have begun wave V to retest 270, or that we are in wave II of the primary (incomplete) to new all time highs. If we pass 2000 yuan, wave II is invalidated. If we pass 3000 yuan (practically 2800 or so) then wave V, $270 retest is invalidated. big spread but quite simple. This agrees with some very important trend lone degrees that pass over around 3000 yuan, signalling a breakout at that level.

I wouldn't necessarily call 3000 as invalidation of any V down. We could be in some kind of double or triple zig-zag/3's that would certainly rise to or above 3000 and still be a valid IV.

Also, (I don't want to be a stickler, but) 2000 would not invalidate your I/II count. The beginning of I was at ~1900. That would be the invalidation point since II can retrace a full 100% of I, but not more.

I would disagree with the double zig zag hypothesis, my argument is based on larger trend lines here. We dont have space to muck around above 3000 yuan. by the next time we reach 3000 yuan, long term momentum has shifted and we have broken out.

2000 is just a nice number very unlikely that wave II will get that far but maybe you are right, somewhere in 19xx would be 100% invalidation.

[Barney]

Longterm resistance you are referring to was already temporary broken on chinese exchanges. So we can visit that area (~3000 CNY) in a form of spike and still have false breakout later with $270 retest possible.

[chessnut]

Longterm resistance you are referring to was already temporary broken on chinese exchanges. So we can visit that area (~3000 CNY) in a form of spike and still have false breakout later with $270 retest possible.

Thats true for the linear scale but what is important to us is the logarithmic scale as this is an exponentially growing asset. the chinese exchanges have not broken this.

[Barney]

Longterm resistance you are referring to was already temporary broken on chinese exchanges. So we can visit that area (~3000 CNY) in a form of spike and still have false breakout later with $270 retest possible.

Thats true for the linear scale but what is important to us is the logarithmic scale as this is an exponentially growing asset. the chinese exchanges have not broken this.

That is log scale. Bitcoinwisdom\Huobi

[chessnut]

That is log scale. Bitcoinwisdom\Huobi

Oh true but looking closer that trend line doesnt have the same significance as the one I have drawn. we are connecting the extreme of wave B not wave V (the top) because its the tip of wave B where the down trend of wave C begins. Draw the line from the tip of wave B and you will see the chinese exchanges are not out yet.

[Barney]

That is log scale. Bitcoinwisdom\Huobi

Oh true but looking closer that trend line doesnt have the same significance as the one I have drawn. we are connecting the extreme of wave B not wave V (the top) because its the tip of wave B where the down trend of wave C begins. Draw the line from the tip of wave B and you will see the chinese exchanges are not out yet.

Ok, makes sense now.

[windjc]

Is it still a possibility that I is iii of C, and we could we still be on wave v of C, where iv of C is just explanding into a larger, deeper correction?

That was the original count, that we had yet to see wave v of hypothetical C OR I to come. because of the size of hypothetical wave iv this count has lost all plausibility and is better explained by a complete impulsive with a blowout wave v. There are only two plausible counts left, that we have begun wave V to retest 270, or that we are in wave II of the primary (incomplete) to new all time highs. If we pass 2000 yuan, wave II is invalidated. If we pass 3000 yuan (practically 2800 or so) then wave V, $270 retest is invalidated. big spread but quite simple. This agrees with some very important trend lone degrees that pass over around 3000 yuan, signalling a breakout at that level.

I wouldn't necessarily call 3000 as invalidation of any V down. We could be in some kind of double or triple zig-zag/3's that would certainly rise to or above 3000 and still be a valid IV.

Also, (I don't want to be a stickler, but) 2000 would not invalidate your I/II count. The beginning of I was at ~1900. That would be the invalidation point since II can retrace a full 100% of I, but not more.

I would disagree with the double zig zag hypothesis, my argument is based on larger trend lines here. We dont have space to muck around above 3000 yuan. by the next time we reach 3000 yuan, long term momentum has shifted and we have broken out.

I am not sure why you believe that if we break 3000 we have "broken out". I mean there is nothing that guarantees that bitcoin has to make new ATHs if we break 3000 is there?

I mean we all would love another bubble mode, but 1200 could theoretically be the ATH for another 12+ months without the market also having to go down in a straight line?

Why couldn't bitcoin go above 3000 and then still make lower lows or at least retest them?

[chessnut]

I am not sure why you believe that if we break 3000 we have "broken out". I mean there is nothing that guarantees that bitcoin has to make new ATHs if we break 3000 is there?

I mean we all would love another bubble mode, but 1200 could theoretically be the ATH for another 12+ months without the market also having to go down in a straight line?

Why couldn't bitcoin go above 3000 and then still make lower lows or at least retest them?

breaking 3000 breaks a trend and that would be a breakout. I dont believe new ATH is guaranteed but its a convincing count. Anything is possible I think we all understand that.

[chessnut]

We have seen a triangle breakout and although the thrust was strong this is still not a valid base to push upwards from. I expect a bearish movement tonight. Triangles are always terminal moves.