Topic: 2021 Elliott Wave - page 5. (Read 3712 times)
What is your price cycle prediction for May with bitcoin ?
You say that the bear markets have lasted an average of 13 months, we are talking about the two corrective waves of PRIMARY grade, that is, waves [2] and [4].
These waves [2] and [4] are bull market corrections that have lasted between 2 and 3 years.
According to your count, at the end of the year 2021 the CYCLE-I wave will be able to end, which will have lasted 13 years.
You tell us that the CYCLE-II wave can last 12-18 months:
1.-you say that the CYCLE-II wave is similar in time to the PRIMARY [2] and [4] waves
2.-If a 2-3 year bullish cycle is followed by a 13-month correction, which corresponds to 54-36% of time with respect to its impulsive wave, how can it be that a 13-year wave is followed by a correction of only 12-18 months, which is at most 11% of the time with respect to the impulse wave that you are correcting?
These waves [2] and [4] are bull market corrections that have lasted between 2 and 3 years.
According to your count, at the end of the year 2021 the CYCLE-I wave will be able to end, which will have lasted 13 years.
You tell us that the CYCLE-II wave can last 12-18 months:
1.-you say that the CYCLE-II wave is similar in time to the PRIMARY [2] and [4] waves
2.-If a 2-3 year bullish cycle is followed by a 13-month correction, which corresponds to 54-36% of time with respect to its impulsive wave, how can it be that a 13-year wave is followed by a correction of only 12-18 months, which is at most 11% of the time with respect to the impulse wave that you are correcting?
CYCLE-II bear market could be longer than 12-18 months.
However, the next Halving is in 2024. Since each Halving has occurred around 1.5 years into a bull market, the end of CYCLE-II bear market could occur by 2023.
Elliott Wave theory prioritises price (i.e. the magnitude of a wave expressed in percentages and points) and structure first, and then time to quantify waves in relation to other waves.
Waves are not quantified in relation to other waves by time —that is merely a guide based on prior character and form. Each individual market has its own character in terms of duration and size of bull & bear modes.
For an example, take a look at the DJIA 30 index from 2009 to 2020...
https://12345abcdewxyz.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/20210420-djia30.png
The 2009-2020 bull market in the DJIA 30 index took 11 years unfolding in 5 waves of PRIMARY degree, thereby completing an overall CYCLE degree bull market.
During the entire 11 year CYCLE bull market, there was no pullback or crash greater than -20% in decline.
Then, in just 40 days, the Coronavirus Crash completed a CYCLE degree bear market, a -39% decline.
Your idealization would have expected an 11 year bull market to be corrected by a bear market taking several years, not 40 days...!
Currently expecting CYCLE-I bull market to top around $220,000 to $380,000 by JAN 2022 —could be higher, could be lower, will revise price and time accordingly as the waves develop.
On average, bear markets have elapsed around 13 months, with -85% declines.
Current expectation for CYCLE-II bear market is around a -90% decline, elapsing 12-18 months.
You say that the bear markets have lasted an average of 13 months, we are talking about the two corrective waves of PRIMARY grade, that is, waves [2] and [4].
These waves [2] and [4] are bull market corrections that have lasted between 2 and 3 years.
According to your count, at the end of the year 2021 the CYCLE-I wave will be able to end, which will have lasted 13 years.
You tell us that the CYCLE-II wave can last 12-18 months:
1.-you say that the CYCLE-II wave is similar in time to the PRIMARY [2] and [4] waves
2.-If a 2-3 year bullish cycle is followed by a 13-month correction, which corresponds to 54-36% of time with respect to its impulsive wave, how can it be that a 13-year wave is followed by a correction of only 12-18 months, which is at most 11% of the time with respect to the impulse wave that you are correcting?
If Cycle I is really being developed, which would have taken 13 years to develop, how can II be?
-How much can you correct in %
-How long will it last, which should be proportional to 13? 3-4 years?
My first sensations are that the bear market that could come if that count is confirmed, will be long and very hard.
And it is difficult for S2F to continue to be fulfilled for the next halving, to see $ 1 million.
-How much can you correct in %
-How long will it last, which should be proportional to 13? 3-4 years?
My first sensations are that the bear market that could come if that count is confirmed, will be long and very hard.
And it is difficult for S2F to continue to be fulfilled for the next halving, to see $ 1 million.
Currently expecting CYCLE-I bull market to top around $220,000 to $380,000 by JAN 2022 —could be higher, could be lower, will revise price and time accordingly as the waves develop.
On average, bear markets have elapsed around 13 months, with -85% declines.
Current expectation for CYCLE-II bear market is around a -90% decline, elapsing 12-18 months.
So far, the Halvings appear to occur in the early stages of bull markets —about 1.5 years into a bull market.
The next fourth Halving is expected in 2024. Therefore, CYCLE-II bear market ought to have ended by 2023/2024.
Its anybody's guess if there will be a new CYCLE-III bull market...?!
Thank you for your follow-up. I had also come to the conclusion of an a,b,c forming (ii) for the last BTC movement. Seems obvious so no great merit!!!
Regarding the LTC count, it is in primary [A], , [C] forming W, then X, then again primary [A], , [C] forming which movement of which lettering that fits into a cycle I?
Thank you for your help with a technical understanding of your method in Elliot Wave.
Have a nice day.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Regarding the LTC count, it is in primary [A], , [C] forming W, then X, then again primary [A], , [C] forming which movement of which lettering that fits into a cycle I?
Thank you for your help with a technical understanding of your method in Elliot Wave.
Have a nice day.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Overall sequence as follows...
Code:
CYCLE I =
[W] ([A]-[B]-[C])
[X]
[Y] ([A]-[B]-[C])
[W] ([A]-[B]-[C])
[X]
[Y] ([A]-[B]-[C])
Currently in [C] of [Y] of CYCLE I
Thank you very much for this clarification.
If Cycle I is really being developed, which would have taken 13 years to develop, how can II be?
-How much can you correct in %
-How long will it last, which should be proportional to 13? 3-4 years?
My first sensations are that the bear market that could come if that count is confirmed, will be long and very hard.
And it is difficult for S2F to continue to be fulfilled for the next halving, to see $ 1 million.
Thank you for your follow-up. I had also come to the conclusion of an a,b,c forming (ii) for the last BTC movement. Seems obvious so no great merit!!!
Regarding the LTC count, it is in primary [A], , [C] forming W, then X, then again primary [A], , [C] forming which movement of which lettering that fits into a cycle I?
Thank you for your help with a technical understanding of your method in Elliot Wave.
Have a nice day.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Regarding the LTC count, it is in primary [A], , [C] forming W, then X, then again primary [A], , [C] forming which movement of which lettering that fits into a cycle I?
Thank you for your help with a technical understanding of your method in Elliot Wave.
Have a nice day.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Overall sequence as follows...
Code:
CYCLE I =
[W] ([A]-[B]-[C])
[X]
[Y] ([A]-[B]-[C])
[W] ([A]-[B]-[C])
[X]
[Y] ([A]-[B]-[C])
Currently in [C] of [Y] of CYCLE I
Thank you for your follow-up. I had also come to the conclusion of an a,b,c forming (ii) for the last BTC movement. Seems obvious so no great merit!!!
Regarding the LTC count, it is in primary [A], , [C] forming W, then X, then again primary [A], , [C] forming which movement of which lettering that fits into a cycle I?
Thank you for your help with a technical understanding of your method in Elliot Wave.
Have a nice day.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Regarding the LTC count, it is in primary [A], , [C] forming W, then X, then again primary [A], , [C] forming which movement of which lettering that fits into a cycle I?
Thank you for your help with a technical understanding of your method in Elliot Wave.
Have a nice day.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I still don't understand some things about this count.
Shouldn't minor2 and minor4 look?
That is, to be able to join them with a line without crossing the price.
The typical line 2-4, I have always thought that it should not cross the price.
Could you clarify what theory you apply, so as not to ask yourself so much.
https://carteraglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/24.png
Shouldn't minor2 and minor4 look?
That is, to be able to join them with a line without crossing the price.
The typical line 2-4, I have always thought that it should not cross the price.
Could you clarify what theory you apply, so as not to ask yourself so much.
https://carteraglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/24.png
Your diagrams illustrate the ideal perfection, originating from the world of ideas —the theory of forms, as attributed by Plato. Reality is an imperfect implementation of these abstract models; see here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
A trendline connecting the bases of wave-2 and wave-4 may often occur on a localised linear chart. However, it is inapplicable to use a rigid trendline on a long-term parabolic logarithmic chart —using straight lines on a curving chart will not yield a best fit.
I still don't understand some things about this count.
Shouldn't minor2 and minor4 look?
That is, to be able to join them with a line without crossing the price.
The typical line 2-4, I have always thought that it should not cross the price.
Could you clarify what theory you apply, so as not to ask yourself so much.
In that case, if that minimum of March/20 is (2), wouldn't the (4) you have drawn be too small? (only 2 bars falling, compared to 37 in (2))
For there to be alternation, wouldn't it be more logical to see a triangle as wave (4)?
Now I realize that the same thing happens in the previous cycle, the (4) looks much smaller than the (2).
For there to be alternation, wouldn't it be more logical to see a triangle as wave (4)?
Now I realize that the same thing happens in the previous cycle, the (4) looks much smaller than the (2).
The rule of alternation between wave-2 and wave-4 is not a compulsory requirement. Such alternations are more common in equity markets, as opposed to commodities and currencies —even rarer in other markets like art and house prices.
The difference between wave-(2) and the projected wave-(4) is not 'too small' —there is no strict requirement that both waves have to be similar in time and price.
The chart is set to logarithmic scale. If you were to change it to linear scale, then the projected wave-(4) will look 'too big'.
2018-2020 can not be a Triangle. Such a structure requires 5 legs A-B-C-D-E —see allowable possibilities illustrated below, of which none fit the price action of 2018-2020...
I believed that alternation was a fundamental rule.
When I spoke of triangle in wave (4) I was referring to the wave of this Primary [5], which I see has drawn very similar to the one (4) of the Primary [3]
However, it is true that if this Primary [5] is a parabolic movement like the Primary [3], a triangle would not fit much, and if a fast wave like the ones you have drawn.
In that case, if that minimum of March/20 is (2), wouldn't the (4) you have drawn be too small? (only 2 bars falling, compared to 37 in (2))
For there to be alternation, wouldn't it be more logical to see a triangle as wave (4)?
Now I realize that the same thing happens in the previous cycle, the (4) looks much smaller than the (2).
For there to be alternation, wouldn't it be more logical to see a triangle as wave (4)?
Now I realize that the same thing happens in the previous cycle, the (4) looks much smaller than the (2).
The rule of alternation between wave-2 and wave-4 is not a compulsory requirement. Such alternations are more common in equity markets, as opposed to commodities and currencies —even rarer in other markets like art and house prices.
The difference between wave-(2) and the projected wave-(4) is not 'too small' —there is no strict requirement that both waves have to be similar in time and price.
The chart is set to logarithmic scale. If you were to change it to linear scale, then the projected wave-(4) will look 'too big'.
2018-2020 can not be a Triangle. Such a structure requires 5 legs A-B-C-D-E —see allowable possibilities illustrated below, of which none fit the price action of 2018-2020...
Couldn't I have finished that B on Feb / 20, with a C miss?
The fall of March/20 could be the C of a flat 2018-2020
When looking at the graph, it seems clear that the 2018-2020 correction ended in March/20 and from there, the price rise rapidly to exceed the previous highs of the flat, something common in the flat.
The fall of March/20 could be the C of a flat 2018-2020
When looking at the graph, it seems clear that the 2018-2020 correction ended in March/20 and from there, the price rise rapidly to exceed the previous highs of the flat, something common in the flat.
Your suggestion means both the (B)-wave and (C)-wave, and lower degree C-wave are all truncated misses —no such Elliott Wave structure.
The below image illustrates your erroneous structure of three failed truncated wave misses...
In that case, if that minimum of March/20 is (2), wouldn't the (4) you have drawn be too small? (only 2 bars falling, compared to 37 in (2))
For there to be alternation, wouldn't it be more logical to see a triangle as wave (4)?
Now I realize that the same thing happens in the previous cycle, the (4) looks much smaller than the (2).
I am not a specialist in elliot, but without understanding how (2) can be almost on the same level as [4]. What I see more logical is that (2) is actually the end of [4]
[4] at March 2020 could be a bit deeper than it should have been, due to the immense covid-induced panic at that moment. All the world markets dipped unnaturally then, and if we take into account the lack of liquidity in Bitcoin markets (compared to a traditional stock or commodity market), it is only logical that Bitcoin have dipped even more than typical liquid market. However that was very short-time dip, more of a wick on the chart.
Still that MAR 2020 low is quite a bit higher than the low of 2018 (which is marked as [4]), so the structure is technically quite acceptable.
Just my 2 cents. I am not an EW expert too. xxxx123abcxxxx is the one, and I learned to appreciate his technical analysis a lot. I am stressing the word technical, as we had few disagreements in the past related to long-term fundamental aspects.
Couldn't I have finished that B on Feb / 20, with a C miss?
The fall of March/20 could be the C of a flat 2018-2020
When looking at the graph, it seems clear that the 2018-2020 correction ended in March/20 and from there, the price rise rapidly to exceed the previous highs of the flat, something common in the flat.
The fall of March/20 could be the C of a flat 2018-2020
When looking at the graph, it seems clear that the 2018-2020 correction ended in March/20 and from there, the price rise rapidly to exceed the previous highs of the flat, something common in the flat.
Your suggestion means both the (B)-wave and (C)-wave, and lower degree C-wave are all truncated misses —no such Elliott Wave structure.
The below image illustrates your erroneous structure of three failed truncated wave misses...
That would imply the rise from the low of 2018 to the top of 2019 is wave a B-wave as part of PRIMARY[4] wave.
B-waves are corrective three wave structures.
The rise from 2018 to 2019 is an impulsive five wave parabolical structure. Character and magnitude of such waves are classic motive waves in Bitcoin.
The 2015 and 2019 bull markets began with similar price fractals, see here:
Couldn't I have finished that B on Feb / 20, with a C miss?
The fall of March/20 could be the C of a flat 2018-2020
When looking at the graph, it seems clear that the 2018-2020 correction ended in March/20 and from there, the price rise rapidly to exceed the previous highs of the flat, something common in the flat.
Jump to: