Topic: Bitcoin Forecast, Bitcoin Speculation & Bitcoin Technical Analysis. Up or DOWN? - page 83. (Read 540249 times)

I would very much appreciate seeing your correlation. Either with pictures or dates.

I don't get it.
Your message @ 5 Nov sais:
"We predicted very accurately the rise from 2.04 $ to 3.83 $ last week in the subscriber section of our service."

But last week the price never dropped below $3.
In fact, the 2.04 mark you talk of was hit on the 20th of October, which is more than 2 weeks ago.
Now the term 'prediction' dictates that it is made before the actual event.
So my question is, at what precise date did you make the prediction for this rise?

And in any case, why not open your past short term predictions to the public as they were sent to your user?
They should be worthless for future price and if you are any good it should show when compared to historical data.

DOWN! SELL! SELL! SELL!

 
New public update published
bitcoinbullbear.com/index.html
blog.bitcoinwatch.com

Just want to add a little of my chartism, with all the Elliott waviness in here.

Once adapted to the strange time-scales of Bitcoin and some liquidity problems, the past five months indeed turned out similar to the DJIA and NASDAQ bubbles, no? If the price stays stable now or some time soon, and then rises out of that plateau, we have a match almost as perfect as it gets. I'd be proud if the analogy holds. I started using in in June, a stabilisation now would complete the cycle neatly.

The theory is that a horde of people expect trends to continue, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy until stopped by market forces. They first cause a huge rally, then bear trap, then overconfidence battles an overly large supply in down-up spikes trending down, turning into a pure down-trend as people give up on the "infinite rally" theory and follow the down-trend instead. Finally, undervaluation occurs, and again market forces stop the trend with the greatly improved buying power per USD. Day-trading takes over, blocking motion until people agree the trend is over and things turn back to normal, likely reverting the undervaluation in an upward correction.

This isn't even all of the signs and predictions, there's also a first sell-off of sceptic traders before the main spike... and guess what, all of this happened, except for the plateau (or possibly slow decline) and the final correction, which would be the steps to come up next. However, the final upward correction may be the biggest stretch of the analogy. Bitcoin isn't quite the NASDAQ after all. Still, this is the best I got, so it's what I used.

The problem with this prediction method is that it only works in bubbles, between the first sell-off and final plateau. So if it works one more time, it's reached its time-out for quite a while.

this is correct.
Elliott Wave analysis is an art, not a robotic model.

And this is why some people are successful using it for price forecasts and trading and some aren't .

Just like many people play tennis and not all are in the top 10.

Actually, EW doesn't explain anything.  It's just a pattern recongnition algo, really.  It's us humans that try to provide the explaining.

You guys keep talking about elliot waves as if they would be a physical law or force of nature dictating the bitcoin market.
Instead, EW are just a theoretical model to explain stock prices, which be may be applicable to some extend in some situations or not.

The bitcoin market is influenced by much more than this. Some big news about bitcoin or someone selling or buying a large pile of bitcoins will manipulate the price as well.

But since there is no other information at present and nobody can really tell where the course is going, people are clutching at straws..

Aah, i see.

""Why are there lengths notated and how do they come into play?""

They don't. I was asked about Fibonacci ratios and I used the lines to demonstrate my inability to find any.

Frankly, I am more than a little skeptical of Fibonacci. One feature of the Fibonacci (or Golden) ratio (by definition) is that y/x = 1 + x/y. Which essentially says that 162% is the same as 62% and 81% is the same (inverse) of 124% and one is nearly guaranteed to hit some ratio derived from a Fibonacci ratio. Having said that, third and fifth waves do vaguely tend to extend 2/3 and 3/2 (give or take a huge error).

3.000 support wall is being tested

Why are there lengths notated and how do they come into play?

Here a analysis as also shared in another thread, but it belongs here very well as well:


As promised, some feedback on your EW count.

Overall, I see the longterm wave count the same as you netrin: I: big rise from Aug '10 to Jun '11. II: correction Jun '11 to date, III: huge rally once II is over.

The only small issue is that the wave II correction can not be counted exactly that way.

Wave a can't be counted in 5 waves and this is why the current c wave will also not be a 5 wave move. Wave II is not a simple a-b-c zigzag, but rather a more complex correction, i.e. a "double three".

Going down

If the first sentence happened ("well above $5"), it would be truly amazing. Awesome. Spectacular. And I would be happy to have been wrong.

I've called the wave between 19-29 October, the fourth wave, of the 'b' wave since August, of the II wave since June. If I were to admit a wrong (in light of a superior) count then my a,b,c would need to be a 1,2,3 (as pent drew), which would no longer be a correction, but an impulse, no longer part of the June II wave, but a new III wave. In this particular critical case, I would have been wrong on all scales. My II.b.4.c would all of a sudden become a III.i.1.3.

It is possible, but what else can I say, I believe the alternative (1,2,3) count sucks. Only a "very unlikely massively optimistic impressive third wave extension" would invalidate my general count since August. How many adjectives do I need to demonstrate my confidence (or lack thereof) in a particular count?

Vandroiy makes the most important point. Rather than a simple BUY, SELL, HOLD, if analysis can tell you what is likely to happen, including what conditions invalidate that assertion, then its highly valuable. I've stated that if the 'fourth' wave crossed under $3.3 then it was invalid eight days before it happened, ten days before pent's graph was drawn. If you believed the 1,2,3 count, then you could have placed a stop at $3.3 (I, with a corrective count, sold at $3.8 with stops as $4.2). There is no impulse short of a "very unlikely massively optimistic impressive third wave extension" well beyond $5 that would convince me that bitcoin is already in major wave III. If that were to occur, then as I wrote (in the same thread you were busy spamming):

BTCurious:

A prediction containing multiple scenarios is not useless, even if it does not affect expectation value. Unless you have unlimited funds, speculation is not only about determining which way to bet, but also about determining how much to risk on each "bet". Say I know variance and skew of the future price's probability distribution: I know something, I could even make a better-than-50% bet where the price goes (if the distribution is skewed), but on average, one cannot make money with it.

I won't comment on "Elliott Wave Theory"; it sounds fishy to me, but I never cared to investigate much since I use other methods for risk analysis. But I wouldn't wonder if it can predict likely scenarios, there is no general reason that would deem this impossible unless the prediction targets expectation value.

Yet you are still keeping the option open, as clearly marked by:
So if it crosses $4, you will instantly say "Ooh, yes, it turns out we are in III.i.4!". And then if it doesn't spout a large rally as you predicted earlier, but instead crashes after it reached 5, you will respond with "Yes, of course, we are in an inverted widening triangle!"

Suddenly the III.i.4 won't be called "unlikely" anymore, and the inverted widening triangle won't be called "rare" anymore, because "clearly, they showed up."


I'm not even calling you dishonest, it might be that you actually believe the things you say.

Yet in the end, if you are equally good at explaining any outcome, you have zero knowledge.

BTCurious, are you illiterate?

Just above in the same thread, I wrote "I suspect 3:iv could be appropriately close to $4. Likewise, wave c:5 could end anywhere, though our March wave 'IV' puts it in the $0.6-1.1 range." and linked to an explanation of the invalid fourth wave:

These two scenarios are conditional. Conditions are descrbed in S3052 membership maillist

Sure. I don't really like quoting huge posts with multiple charts, but for sake of fairness, I'll do that this time.

Here goes:

You giving two different predictions in one post:




Then there's S3052 predicting both things:



These are two recent examples.