Topic: Critical Levels - EW analysis - page 117. (Read 355110 times)

This thread is very convincing

But the target for the final wave V can be much lower if it breaks 266. Many people believe BTC will never break previous ATH - so when this happens there will be additional push down.

here is a more accurate illustration of price target. we generally expec wave v to be 0.618x wave iii. that places our target at 270. I think thats a bit shallow and see no reason to be looking for a diminished v. whatever happens, look for bullish weakness in the red circle. I will try track the wave live to the minute fractals.

thanks! I'll fasten my seatbelts then...
low 200 seems like an incredible deal right now! But when the time comes, I'm sure I'll be scared as hell to go all in, as usual 

Hi there,

By that count the final push higher would be a C wave. terminal. imo you have correctly counted wave iii, and because we have now completed and abc (your 'a' wave) in the vacinity of the iv wave of one lower fractal degree, I believe we will be heading to 260 soon to complete wave v. In fact, Im fairly sure it has just begun.

EDIT. to answer your queston better, I dont think that we will have a larger B wave trough 350 because that would pass the wave (iv) of wave iii and likely pass through wave i overlapping.

almost all indicators (macd, rsi etc) use the price action you can see with your own eyes in a formula. One only needs to see divergance patterns in the market for a few years before one's own eye becomes more accurate than any time-scale bound indicator is. The only reasons for using an RSI or macd imo would be for self discipline, consistency or for illustration purposes. I sometimes use rsi and macd, but I dont rely on them.

It will break 350 like a hot knife through butter not too long after the final move like I said up there, with all the best counts I can see, 450 is really the minimum retracement for the short term.

yeah this is how I feel about DanV's analysis. In the market there are real motives related to greater moves, for example, china bans bitcoin. quite literally thats what we mean when we say a motive, or an impulsive wave. DanV will see a silly over lap on a one minute chart, and without consideration of real market forces, he will insist that an impulsive count for example is not valid. I called for an impulsive wave from 420 after the fall to 340. He absolutely rejected he idea, while in fact it played out beautifully, all fractals in tact to 680.

Listen to the EW analysts that prepare you for the worst, aka he best possible up and down situations at any given point. That way you can use the advice to the best effect in your own beliefs and strategies. The wave science and maths behind EW analysis is totally falsifiable. I'd avoid any EW analyst that cant explain this. The best Ive heard from DanV is that "because the rules say so". He is very condescending and arrogent about it all...

Thanks a lot for sharing! Do you also use other tools like oscillators etc in your analysis?
Sure enough, that big mofo wall made the technical picture a little bit confused when it was there... but I agree on the bigger scale it doesn't matter
could we also be tracing out a bigger b wave right now before a final push higher? After such a massive move down I just can't believe we cannot even go above 350...!

http://i.imgur.com/5dJLBSL.png

I find DanV's elliott wave analysis to precise, but not accurate. That is to say his wave count is dead on, but his price target is historically off, and he admitted himself that he doesn't fully understand the instrument of the bitcoin technology.

DanV's first BTC analysis, October 2013:


That's just one example of many of his off-predictions.

If you want to see how reliable a person's TA is, backtest their predictions:
https://www.tradingview.com/u/DanV/#search-charts=BITCOIN

DanV has gotten some predictions correct including the latest one... but if you shotgun enough darts at the board as he does, you're going hit the mark eventually.

IMO, DanV's track record shows that his wave count is consistent, but his price target is off by a mile. Good EW analyst with limited understanding of BTC's fundamentals.

What do you think of DanV's latest predictions (before the recent downswing to $275)?  He seems to be saying no new highs for a few years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkPvAxb9AD4

Here is a good count of the current market action. we might bottom out around mid 200s.

wave theory is a reflection of the real market forces. I do not doubt that the market has taken into account this fear mongering.

I respect your attempt to find order in the chaos, but you can't account for the human element in your equation. At the time of this writing, a very serious vulnerability has been discovered in bitcoin. this attack is known at the FRONT attack, i posted a thread about it earlier. Its going around on the mailing lists. The attack is of minor concern, as it would require alot of money/bitcoin to exploit and freeze the network, but its very real, and very much going to be a factor into the bitcoin price over the next few months. Entities like NSA and Terrorist groups probably have the resources to exploit this attack vector, if they so choose.

Panic selling always pushes the price as far as it can go, you can count on it that we are at tough support here. count how many bitcoins have been sold over the down trend. A small order like 20k bitcoin is easily absorbed over the exchanges.

care to elaborate?

NO.

Will the 20000 bitcoin bitstamp sell order at $300 throw your calculations off a bit?

that's fucking hilarious!

RyninDaclem has given me tips on triangles and ending diagonals in the past, but I am very much self taught from internet resources. I have my own philosophy about wave theory, I keep it closer to scientific wave theory/physics than the traditional Elliot wave theory. I have done this for about 5 years.

Did you learn EW from another member here who was offering his services?

After a great deal of panic selling we have the necessary price action and volume to say that capitulation has happened to some extent. The chart now takes the form of a simple ABC from our ath of $1100. However we have not been gifted with a clear wave C count, necessarily an impulsive wave in EW analysis, to say with confidence that this move is over. Regardless of the correct count we still have many levels to watch that if broken, and in what manner, can give us clues about the termination of wave C.



one thing that seems clear is that wave i of C is the fall from 680 to 540. If we pass through 540 in the coming days, the possibility of a hypothetical wave v is nullified, buy and hold on tight.



Now here's a possible count that makes sense and looks good until we take into consideration a couple of significant ew guidelines. wave IV tends to resolve within the vicinity of wave (iv) of one lower fractal (440-530). This would be a deep retracement of wave iii, and must come close to the territory of wave i. This is not a likely wave behaviour because we would expect alternation between the waves ii and iv - deep and shallow and vice versa to that total retracement within the cycle becomes equal to 0.618, the magic number. Also, in the chart above you can see that wave (v) of iii, and similarly wave v of (v) are larger than wave (iii) of iii and iii of v. This we could call a wave v blowout but its not something we expect to see with wave iii of (iii) of ((iii)) etc....
how can we tell if this is the correct count? a retracement to 440 and significant weakness in the area. If this is the count, we will have a final v wave down, possibly into the lower 200s. we would not be likely to enter the 100s because the iii wave was so severe, that a diminished v is likely.



Here is another possible count that implies termination of wave c. On first impression, not as practical as the above, but here is why I think it is equally as likely as the above - a) waves ii and iv alternate (deep and shallow) b) wave iii is a practical size, whereas wave iii above is ridiculously big compared to wave i. ideally we want our iii waves to be 1.618 the size of wave i. in this example, that is more or less the case. In the above example, the ratio is 2.6x wave i. In this case we have a blow out wave v. Speaking of a completed wave C, I do not find this surprising because we are really dealing with an exponential subject here. This logic is consitent with the above example because I am referring to wave v of a complete cycle, not the (v) of a wave iii that is over extended and contradicts a v wave blow-out.
The confirmation of this count is more difficult, we will need to see a convincing primary wave form at local levels, or a blast through 540.



There is a third possibility here that demonstrates the same implications of the second count, but also has imperfections.Namely, the wave iv is too small in comparison to the wave ii, and wave (v) of iii does not easily fit an impulsive description.

while counts of hypothetical wave v or iii may not yet be complete, bottoming out in the next day in the 200s will likely be followed by a rally to at least 450, the lowest probable identifiable wave (iv).

dont let the bear whale get you down.