any suggestions what is to happen next?! price seems to move not really at all, just bounces between 3.10 and 3.25..
when looking at the recent charts i also can't really find any usefull information..
Topic: Bitcoin Forecast, Bitcoin Speculation & Bitcoin Technical Analysis. Up or DOWN? - page 84. (Read 540249 times)
November 02, 2011, 03:12:41 PM
so..
any suggestions what is to happen next?! price seems to move not really at all, just bounces between 3.10 and 3.25..
when looking at the recent charts i also can't really find any usefull information..
any suggestions what is to happen next?! price seems to move not really at all, just bounces between 3.10 and 3.25..
when looking at the recent charts i also can't really find any usefull information..
November 02, 2011, 03:11:30 PM
Thanks for correcting the typo.
Indeed, the low of wave 4 can never be lower than the wave 1 high.
Indeed, the low of wave 4 can never be lower than the wave 1 high.
November 02, 2011, 11:23:21 AM
I believe S3052 meant:
According to the Elliott wave rules, the count you have shown above is not allowed:
The low of wave 4 can never overlap the high of wave5 (1).
The low of wave 4 can never overlap the high of wave
This 'fourth wave' dipped far below the first wave peak of $3.3 (22 October, II.C.4.a). So, this little dip since $3.8 within the third wave needs to see a massive extension before we can label its peak. The fourth wave hasn't begun to materialize and I doubt it ever will. Pent's chart was invalidated 30 hours before he created it.
Elliott Rule 3) Wave 4 does not overlap with the price territory of wave 1, except in the rare case of a diagonal triangle.
Elliott Rule 3) Wave 4 does not overlap with the price territory of wave 1, except in the rare case of a diagonal triangle.
November 02, 2011, 11:13:28 AM
Every elliot analysis I've seen to date has had both up and down as possible interpretations. Usually these conflicting interpretations were both stated by one and the same person!
A theory needs to have a predictive value for it to have any merit. Otherwise you might just as well apply Occam's razor, and flip a coin.
A theory needs to have a predictive value for it to have any merit. Otherwise you might just as well apply Occam's razor, and flip a coin.
BTCurious, would you mind showing an example, where I've shown 'up and down interpretations' along with the accompanying text?
As I recall, here and in other threads, I've only shown alternative wave interpretations to illustrate why the alternative is either invalid or highly unlikely. Similarly, S3052 has provided targets and stops with his various analysis on all scales. It's not random, but does require a bit of brain power and the ability to read a few sentences.
November 02, 2011, 08:32:13 AM
Thanks for applying Elliott wave techniques. There are really useful to anticipate trends, while many other indicators are lagging.
According to the Elliott wave rules, the count you have shown above is not allowed:
The low of wave 4 can never overlap the high of wave 5.
yes, it is still loosing people interest
http://www.google.com/trends?q=bitcoin&ctab=0&geo=all&date=mtd&sort=0
November 01, 2011, 11:29:43 PM
TY for that! Good read...the whole site!
November 01, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
I do not understood what rule broke his chart.
The Oct 23 high is higher than the Oct 30 low, which is not allowed based on the rules.
here is a good overview that explains is well:
empty explanation is empty
November 01, 2011, 05:33:49 PM
I do not understood what rule broke his chart.
The Oct 23 high is higher than the Oct 30 low, which is not allowed based on the rules.
here is a good overview that explains is well:
November 01, 2011, 05:25:47 PM
By the way, if there's 16 people analyzing charts, and they make random predictions, then on average one of them is going to be correct four times in a row!
The 15 wrong analysts will be ignored though, and mentally branded as non-professionals. "Obviously. They got it wrong, didn't they?"
The 15 wrong analysts will be ignored though, and mentally branded as non-professionals. "Obviously. They got it wrong, didn't they?"
November 01, 2011, 05:23:32 PM
1) the rise from the 2.04 $ low was just a A-B-C correction in a continuing downtrend: MEANS NEW LOWS BELOW 2.04 $ to come.
2) BTCUSD develop a series of first and second waves in a bigger uptrend. MEANS THAT THE 2.04 $ LOW WAS THE TERMINAL LOW OF THE 4 MONTHS CORRECTION AND PRICES WILL NOT MAKE A NEW LOW BELOW 2.04 $.
We need to see some more price action to determine the most likely outcome.
Which is like saying: "We need to see if it goes below 2.04 to see if it goes below 2.04."2) BTCUSD develop a series of first and second waves in a bigger uptrend. MEANS THAT THE 2.04 $ LOW WAS THE TERMINAL LOW OF THE 4 MONTHS CORRECTION AND PRICES WILL NOT MAKE A NEW LOW BELOW 2.04 $.
We need to see some more price action to determine the most likely outcome.
Every elliot analysis I've seen to date has had both up and down as possible interpretations. Usually these conflicting interpretations were both stated by one and the same person!
A theory needs to have a predictive value for it to have any merit. Otherwise you might just as well apply Occam's razor, and flip a coin.
November 01, 2011, 04:38:36 PM
I do not understood what rule broke his chart.
November 01, 2011, 04:06:14 PM
Im not a big specialist in this, but since S3052 went somewhere...
simple Eliott wave theory suggests fifth wave in order to uptrend. Then will be a correction. The picture is near to a simplest Eliott wave.
simple Eliott wave theory suggests fifth wave in order to uptrend. Then will be a correction. The picture is near to a simplest Eliott wave.
Thanks for applying Elliott wave techniques. There are really useful to anticipate trends, while many other indicators are lagging.
According to the Elliott wave rules, the count you have shown above is not allowed:
The low of wave 4 can never overlap the high of wave 5.
Here is a chart that I published to our subscribers 2 days ago. It shows that there are two valid possibilities (some of them are discussed by some posters also in this thread accurately):
1) the rise from the 2.04 $ low was just a A-B-C correction in a continuing downtrend: MEANS NEW LOWS BELOW 2.04 $ to come.
2) BTCUSD develop a series of first and second waves in a bigger uptrend. MEANS THAT THE 2.04 $ LOW WAS THE TERMINAL LOW OF THE 4 MONTHS CORRECTION AND PRICES WILL NOT MAKE A NEW LOW BELOW 2.04 $.
We need to see some more price action to determine the most likely outcome.
November 01, 2011, 04:00:52 PM
It's only elaborate numerology after all.
Every set of Elliott waves is itself an Elliott wave. Looking only at one scale, you can't discern a five wave impulse from a three wave correction when you're only in the third wave, unless you've decided what type of bigger wave you're already in, based on many earlier waves. Of course you could be totally wrong or totally lucky either way.
So, right now you have a theory, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is next. See what happens. If it goes up above 3, you were probably right. Then you can guess you've completed some bigger impulse. Which? I, III, or V? Either way, you should expect a correction after V. Big or small? Context.
Every set of Elliott waves is itself an Elliott wave. Looking only at one scale, you can't discern a five wave impulse from a three wave correction when you're only in the third wave, unless you've decided what type of bigger wave you're already in, based on many earlier waves. Of course you could be totally wrong or totally lucky either way.
So, right now you have a theory, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is next. See what happens. If it goes up above 3, you were probably right. Then you can guess you've completed some bigger impulse. Which? I, III, or V? Either way, you should expect a correction after V. Big or small? Context.
November 01, 2011, 03:44:52 PM
I see... maybe I don't know enough about Elliott waves to talk about them yet. :\
November 01, 2011, 02:49:52 PM
pent: I agree. It's almost a perfect Elliott wave. This can be THE disproof of the applicability of Elliott waves to BTC... (if it goes down)
Not at all. You need to put your potential impulse wave in greater context. You could just as easily label 1=IV.a, 2=IV.b, 3=IV.c, 4=V.1.
So, you are saying it could go up, or it could go down...
I provided a converse to the 'proof' above. My personal opinion hasn't changed in weeks. We have just left II.C.4.c station, C.5 bound. Next stop, down.
This 'fourth wave' dipped far below the first wave peak of $3.3 (22 October, II.C.4.a). So, this little dip since $3.8 within the third wave needs to see a massive extension before we can label its peak. The fourth wave hasn't begun to materialize and I doubt it ever will. Pent's chart was invalidated 30 hours before he created it.
Elliott Rule 3) Wave 4 does not overlap with the price territory of wave 1, except in the rare case of a diagonal triangle.
November 01, 2011, 02:37:39 PM
Not many other options, I thought it was goin to be up as of today now I feel like a downtrend since it has been slowly going down past few days investors at high 3 are probably going to be cashing out soon and confidence has probably changed to fear; I don't have any waves or technics but this is just my guess I hope I am dead wrong though
November 01, 2011, 02:09:15 PM
pent: I agree. It's almost a perfect Elliott wave. This can be THE disproof of the applicability of Elliott waves to BTC... (if it goes down)
Not at all. You need to put your potential impulse wave in greater context. You could just as easily label 1=IV.a, 2=IV.b, 3=IV.c, 4=V.1.
November 01, 2011, 01:39:00 PM
I am too wondering where S3052 went...
Or the other Elliot Wave guy
Or the other Elliot Wave guy
November 01, 2011, 01:27:25 PM
The question is if 4 is really finished now - my amateur subwave analysis suggest that it will take a bit more.
Jump to: