Critical Levels - EW analysis

[chessnut]

Wave v ending diagonal is still valid. The latest rally to 2085 was impressive but not critical. I expect a gentle down trend to complete wave v. Ending diagonals are fragile things, it could end violently bullish so take care bears. 

imugr?

[podyx]

Wave v ending diagonal is still valid. The latest rally to 2085 was impressive but not critical. I expect a gentle down trend to complete wave v. Ending diagonals are fragile things, it could end violently bullish so take care bears.  

imugr?

img]https://www.tradingview.com/x/0iSirMFU/[/img]

To be honest though, it looks more like a channel then a descending wedge

[Trolololo]

Hi, chessnut and other EW gurus.

I would like to know your opinion about bitcoin EW long term.

Count:
"0"= 0.05 (July 2010)
"1"= 32 (June 2011)
"2"= 2 (Dec 2011)
"3"= 266 (April 2013), not the shortest (of 1,3,5)
"4"= 65 (July 2013), higher than "1" (32), and very different than "2" in deepness, time and shape
"5"= 1163 (Nov 2013)
"A"= 275 (oct 2014), equal or higher than "3" (266)
"B"= ?
"C"= equal or higher than "4" (65)

In EW terms, is valid this count?

A chart here:


Thank you

[RyNinDaCleM]

Hi, chessnut and other EW gurus.

I would like to know your opinion about bitcoin EW long term.

Count:
"0"= 0.05 (July 2010)
"1"= 32 (June 2011)
"2"= 2 (Dec 2011)
"3"= 266 (April 2013), not the shortest (of 1,3,5)
"4"= 65 (July 2013), higher than "1" (32), and very different than "2" in deepness, time and shape
"5"= 1163 (Nov 2013)
"A"= 275 (oct 2014), equal or higher than "3" (266)
"B"= ?
"C"= equal or higher than "4" (65)

In EW terms, is valid this count?

A chart here:


Thank you

It is valid, yes

edit:
However, since 1 and 3 of III are both more of a sideways type correction, it's less likely since it goes against the guide line of alternation. This does not invalidate it, just makes it less likely.

[BombaUcigasa]

A chart here:


Thank you

It is valid, yes

It's wrong and lazy.

[RyNinDaCleM]

A chart here:


Thank you

It is valid, yes

It's wrong and lazy.

I can only see lazy if you are talking about the fact that he didn't count the subwaves to figure it out for himself, but how is it wrong?
It is my belief that the 1163 high was the top of a further extended 3rd, but that doesn't make his count any less valid. :/

[BombaUcigasa]

I can only see lazy if you are talking about the fact that he didn't count the subwaves to figure it out for himself, but how is it wrong?

Well if you can count a wave being 300%+ longer than the other waves, and ignoring the ones you don't like, ok. You can just invent whatever system you want, but don't call it Elliot Waves. Let's have some respect for methodology. This whole thread is just make-believe-draw-lines-everywhere bullshit. Too much scribbling noise. This needs to stop.

Instead, as you can see on my pictures, which are back to back charts from the start of the bitcoin market until now, the Elliot Waves are pretty clear and respect the methodology. I don't even need to draw lines or numbers (small deviations for the 30$ and 15$ bubbles being ahead of schedule, and this summer's bubble being the most noise drowned one).

What comes up next should be a higher level wave (2015-2017) at a higher price, with the same 4 small waves spaced apart by 8 months, and then a higher level wave at lower price and the cycle is complete. The Halfening is also scheduled in early 2016, which can correspond to the top "5" peak.

Or maybe he is right and I am wrong, in which case using the correct methodology is useless for preparing for the future and we can stop posting on this thread.

[Alonzo Ewing]

Well if you can count a wave being 300%+ longer than the other waves, and ignoring the ones you don't like, ok. You can just invent whatever system you want, but don't call it Elliot Waves. Let's have some respect for methodology. This whole thread is just make-believe-draw-lines-everywhere bullshit. Too much scribbling noise. This needs to stop.

Instead, as you can see on my pictures, which are back to back charts from the start of the bitcoin market until now, the Elliot Waves are pretty clear and respect the methodology. I don't even need to draw lines or numbers (small deviations for the 30$ and 15$ bubbles being ahead of schedule, and this summer's bubble being the most noise drowned one).

What comes up next should be a higher level wave (2015-2017) at a higher price, with the same 4 small waves spaced apart by 8 months, and then a higher level wave at lower price and the cycle is complete. The Halfening is also scheduled in early 2016, which can correspond to the top "5" peak.

Or maybe he is right and I am wrong, in which case using the correct methodology is useless for preparing for the future and we can stop posting on this thread.

How about posting a chart with labels?

[ask]

I can only see lazy if you are talking about the fact that he didn't count the subwaves to figure it out for himself, but how is it wrong?

Well if you can count a wave being 300%+ longer than the other waves, and ignoring the ones you don't like, ok. You can just invent whatever system you want, but don't call it Elliot Waves. Let's have some respect for methodology. This whole thread is just make-believe-draw-lines-everywhere bullshit. Too much scribbling noise. This needs to stop.

Instead, as you can see on my pictures, which are back to back charts from the start of the bitcoin market until now, the Elliot Waves are pretty clear and respect the methodology. I don't even need to draw lines or numbers (small deviations for the 30$ and 15$ bubbles being ahead of schedule, and this summer's bubble being the most noise drowned one).

What comes up next should be a higher level wave (2015-2017) at a higher price, with the same 4 small waves spaced apart by 8 months, and then a higher level wave at lower price and the cycle is complete. The Halfening is also scheduled in early 2016, which can correspond to the top "5" peak.

Or maybe he is right and I am wrong, in which case using the correct methodology is useless for preparing for the future and we can stop posting on this thread.

+1

[chessnut]

Wave v ending diagonal is still valid. The latest rally to 2085 was impressive but not critical. I expect a gentle down trend to complete wave v. Ending diagonals are fragile things, it could end violently bullish so take care bears.  

imugr?

img]https://www.tradingview.com/x/0iSirMFU/[/img]

To be honest though, it looks more like a channel then a descending wedge

You could call it both. but we are looking for an EW count, and there is only one way wave V could be described with the current price action, and that is by a descending wedge. It is still contracting as a wedge should, its totally valid. The beauty of an ending diagonal is that it will reveal strong characteristics at the terminal juncture, and we dont need to risk anything until we have that silver bullet. Until then it is also a bad idea to swing trade this price action as I have been saying for many weeks.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Are we ever going to have another upwards price surge?
It's bull shit atm.

[chessnut]

Are we ever going to have another upwards price surge?
It's bull shit atm.

The market is cornered. Time wise, we now have better evidence that we are close to a longer term bottom than we have had throughout the bear market beginning last December. Consistent with this evidence is that we continue to fall a bit more. weak miserable price action, probably no more than 2 months, and then we may see some fireworks. In due time the ATH of $1100 will probably be broken by the best potential long term EW counts.

[RyNinDaCleM]

I can only see lazy if you are talking about the fact that he didn't count the subwaves to figure it out for himself, but how is it wrong?

Well if you can count a wave being 300%+ longer than the other waves, and ignoring the ones you don't like, ok. You can just invent whatever system you want, but don't call it Elliot Waves. Let's have some respect for methodology. This whole thread is just make-believe-draw-lines-everywhere bullshit. Too much scribbling noise. This needs to stop.

Instead, as you can see on my pictures, which are back to back charts from the start of the bitcoin market until now, the Elliot Waves are pretty clear and respect the methodology. I don't even need to draw lines or numbers (small deviations for the 30$ and 15$ bubbles being ahead of schedule, and this summer's bubble being the most noise drowned one).

What comes up next should be a higher level wave (2015-2017) at a higher price, with the same 4 small waves spaced apart by 8 months, and then a higher level wave at lower price and the cycle is complete. The Halfening is also scheduled in early 2016, which can correspond to the top "5" peak.

Or maybe he is right and I am wrong, in which case using the correct methodology is useless for preparing for the future and we can stop posting on this thread.

Waves are ever evolving. Ever growing in degree. Just because he has the top of a 5th wave doesn't mean it's the end of all possible counts.
The charts you posted are interpreted as such in the attempt to show that trololol's count is as valid as they come. Not necessarily the most ideal count, but valid none the less.

his count with a bit of alteration.

your first chart

Your second chart


I don't see where I don't follow methodology.

300% movement is irrelevant. EW is based on price movement and as long as the 3rd wave isn't the shortest, it fulfills all requirements of EW. Guide lines (which aren't rules) are the only thing bent here.

[LTListener]

Are we ever going to have another upwards price surge?
It's bull shit atm.

Ever? Yeah I think so, but now I only see us going down. The amount of computer processing power being used for mining bitcoins has started going down.
People have started turning their mining rigs down or off completely, this can lead to some very interesting (or scary) movements.

[BombaUcigasa]

your first chart

Your second chart


I don't see where I don't follow methodology.

300% movement is irrelevant. EW is based on price movement and as long as the 3rd wave isn't the shortest, it fulfills all requirements of EW. Guide lines (which aren't rules) are the only thing bent here.

I don't understand why you would use different notations for the second chart...



A correct Elliott wave "count" must observe three rules:

Wave 2 never retraces more than 100% of wave 1.
Wave 3 cannot be the shortest of the three impulse waves, namely waves 1, 3 and 5.
Wave 4 does not overlap with the price territory of wave 1, except in the rare case of a diagonal triangle.

Why do you have to complicate something obvious and simple, both charts appear to be 1-2-3-4-5-A-B-C and they are back to back, suggesting the standard fractal structure. Where did I, II, III, IV and V come from?

[Trolololo]

Well, I just wanted to know whether that account was possible in EW terms.


The main long term account I consider is that we are close the big "4":



Thank you all for your opinions.

[RyNinDaCleM]

your first chart

Your second chart


I don't see where I don't follow methodology.

300% movement is irrelevant. EW is based on price movement and as long as the 3rd wave isn't the shortest, it fulfills all requirements of EW. Guide lines (which aren't rules) are the only thing bent here.

I don't understand why you would use different notations for the second chart...



A correct Elliott wave "count" must observe three rules:

Wave 2 never retraces more than 100% of wave 1.
Wave 3 cannot be the shortest of the three impulse waves, namely waves 1, 3 and 5.
Wave 4 does not overlap with the price territory of wave 1, except in the rare case of a diagonal triangle.

Why do you have to complicate something obvious and simple, both charts appear to be 1-2-3-4-5-A-B-C and they are back to back, suggesting the standard fractal structure. Where did I, II, III, IV and V come from?

I know the rules to EW, thanks.
The upper case roman numerals are just a higher degree count than the digits.
what do you call the 7.22 high from January 2012? The small bump at the end of the first chart that I have labeled "1". That is not part of the correction from 32 so it's the first subwave of III from the second chart.

Edit to add;
Now that I'm home, I'll post this long term count to help show what I mean.

The red count is what I feel is more likely. The black count is the one in question. When the charts are put together, it's easier to see what is going on.

Trololo, That first one is a valid count. And as I said, my more preferred count is like your last pic. Both are valid and adhere to all EW rules.

[chessnut]

we could have here a truncated ending diagonal (v) of V here. nothing conclusive, but I am on alert for bottoming in this area. at this level, only a matter of time before we break out to the upside. the downwards price action is not impulsive. This suggests that even if the wave V ending diagonal is wrong, we will be likely exploring the area of 3000+ yuan again within months.

[podyx]

we could have here a truncated ending diagonal (v) of V here. nothing conclusive, but I am on alert for bottoming in this area. at this level, only a matter of time before we break out to the upside. the downwards price action is not impulsive. This suggests that even if the wave V ending diagonal is wrong, we will be likely exploring the area of 3000+ yuan again within months.

Hopefully we can touch $280 first and see sub 300 prices for the last time

[Afrikoin]

Question?

What happens when most traders in a market are aware of EW cycles and actively look out for them. Does this affect how EW effect on price? What happens when all of us/most have a clue of price direction next.

My opinion is its effect will be diluted, I am open to being swayed though