^ Or, you know, the 1.2mn btc volume week of January was the capitulation after all, and the most that'll happen now in terms of further capitulation is hammering out a floor around 200 on lackluster selling enthusiasm.
But, nah. That's not even an option, huh.
Topic: Critical Levels - EW analysis - page 35. (Read 355104 times)
That's one scenario, that fits with what I wrote 4 days ago on this page, but the evolution of the bid sum / ask sum suggests a bullish move.
It is possible that the market moves not twice as slow, but thrice as slow than in June - July 2014, in which case a moderate rally can happen
during the next days up to ~270$, similar to the ~665$ on July 1st 2014. In which case the equivalent of the 275$ bottom (October 5th) would be ~111$.
It is possible that the market moves not twice as slow, but thrice as slow than in June - July 2014, in which case a moderate rally can happen
during the next days up to ~270$, similar to the ~665$ on July 1st 2014. In which case the equivalent of the 275$ bottom (October 5th) would be ~111$.
via DanV
Since chessnut has turned bullish lately,
Im only moderately short-medium term bullish, in terms of $100 targets I am still bearish so I havent 'turned', but really we need more evidence for the larger count whatever it is atm.
Since chessnut has turned bullish lately, I'll post something bearish (chart not yet, waiting for more reference points). 
After comparing again the waves of the last couple of months with those of June - July 2014, a plausible bearish scenario
appears to be an exponential deflation, in which market moves take about twice as long now than a year ago.
If this scenario is true, then with my EW-derived method I guesstimate a bottom of 100$ - 110$ around November, followed
by THE bottom of 60$ - 65$ around May 2016. Since this takes a long time and fundamentals can change, the drop to
100$ could be THE bottom and the last part to be truncated, if some very bullish event occurs.
To partially confirm the slow bearish scenario, a major drop will only start some 2 - 3 weeks from now.
So please don't trade based on my post, but only when the sideways will be broken by huge red dildos.
Now you can start throwing rotten tomatoes at me!
After comparing again the waves of the last couple of months with those of June - July 2014, a plausible bearish scenario
appears to be an exponential deflation, in which market moves take about twice as long now than a year ago.
If this scenario is true, then with my EW-derived method I guesstimate a bottom of 100$ - 110$ around November, followed
by THE bottom of 60$ - 65$ around May 2016. Since this takes a long time and fundamentals can change, the drop to
100$ could be THE bottom and the last part to be truncated, if some very bullish event occurs.
To partially confirm the slow bearish scenario, a major drop will only start some 2 - 3 weeks from now.
So please don't trade based on my post, but only when the sideways will be broken by huge red dildos.
Now you can start throwing rotten tomatoes at me!
Hi eboard10.
Even more that: Frost & Prechter in their "Elliott Wave Principle" book say that second waves are never triangles. They appear only in 4ths or Bs. This is why I put (A) wave there, so that (B) is triangle in this scenario.
If we consider alternative count where there is (1) instead of (A), then we must be in the beginning of C of (2) now:
This is my second favourite count. However the beginning of this C looks very weak. It might be that we're having nested 1-2's, but counting C subwaves as motive is nearly impossible. Moreover, C being >0.618 of A in this scenario would lead to breaking 20 weeks and 100 days SMAs, as well as daily upper BB. We've been below W20 for ten months already, so breaking it on wave C of such small degree seems very unlikely.
Even more that: Frost & Prechter in their "Elliott Wave Principle" book say that second waves are never triangles. They appear only in 4ths or Bs. This is why I put (A) wave there, so that (B) is triangle in this scenario.
If we consider alternative count where there is (1) instead of (A), then we must be in the beginning of C of (2) now:
This is my second favourite count. However the beginning of this C looks very weak. It might be that we're having nested 1-2's, but counting C subwaves as motive is nearly impossible. Moreover, C being >0.618 of A in this scenario would lead to breaking 20 weeks and 100 days SMAs, as well as daily upper BB. We've been below W20 for ten months already, so breaking it on wave C of such small degree seems very unlikely.
So, mid-term, it seems to me like long triangle (or maybe flat).
Hi Queeq, from my understanding, wave 2's rarely take an ABCDE triangle pattern. In your first chart you put an (A) to the drop from $304 to $214 (on bitfinex). On this larger degree count, I see it as either a Wave 1 or C so I'm more inclined to see an ABC correction play out.
Your thoughts?
Thanks h3 
@phoenix1. Regarding C breakout. Yeah, that's an interesting question. Especially considering our latest struggle to break 50 and 20 days SMA's. Though we saw enough excitement on waves up even during last months. So it may get enough power to break those. Would be more interesting to watch what would happen at daily upper BB edge which currently drifts along with 20 weeks SMA and 100 day SMA (it also coincides with 0.618 projection):
@phoenix1. Regarding C breakout. Yeah, that's an interesting question. Especially considering our latest struggle to break 50 and 20 days SMA's. Though we saw enough excitement on waves up even during last months. So it may get enough power to break those. Would be more interesting to watch what would happen at daily upper BB edge which currently drifts along with 20 weeks SMA and 100 day SMA (it also coincides with 0.618 projection):
@ Queeg
Just a quick comment - on your top chart I think you have the Fib in the wrong place. It shows 100% retracement as $255 - the high on BFX was only $249.22
Other than that, I tend to agree with the long and boring triangle count
Thanks for posting so many detailed charts at differing time frames
Just a quick comment - on your top chart I think you have the Fib in the wrong place. It shows 100% retracement as $255 - the high on BFX was only $249.22
Other than that, I tend to agree with the long and boring triangle count
Thanks for posting so many detailed charts at differing time frames
it is price projection fib, not price retracement fib, it is for target purposes, in this case the length of A to project to possible C, which normally go to 100%-162% but now in triangle not so high as you can see
@ Queeg
Just a quick comment - on your top chart I think you have the Fib in the wrong place. It shows 100% retracement as $255 - the high on BFX was only $249.22
Other than that, I tend to agree with the long and boring triangle count
Thanks for posting so many detailed charts at differing time frames
EDIT: i am interested to see if C can break through the trendline connecting 2,A and ((b)) on your top chart. Seems like that $236 area is already a significant resistance level anyway. Failing there would at least make the triangle a bit shorter and less torturous if it plays out that way!
Just a quick comment - on your top chart I think you have the Fib in the wrong place. It shows 100% retracement as $255 - the high on BFX was only $249.22
Other than that, I tend to agree with the long and boring triangle count
Thanks for posting so many detailed charts at differing time frames
EDIT: i am interested to see if C can break through the trendline connecting 2,A and ((b)) on your top chart. Seems like that $236 area is already a significant resistance level anyway. Failing there would at least make the triangle a bit shorter and less torturous if it plays out that way!
I'd like to say thanks to all the contributors and share one of my counts which I lately see as most probable. Sorry for any inconvenience that may be caused by =x= and -x- style of wave markings. I use those because I truly believe that wave degrees should be unique from sub-micro to Cycle level to easily distinguish them. =x= is a subwave of x, -x- is a subwave of =x=.
Don't want to put much text here but you can be sure that all of the smaller degree waves were carefully counted too.
So, mid-term, it seems to me like long triangle (or maybe flat).
Last month. (iv) and (i) of ((a)) of B don't overlap as it may be seen.
Red count corresponds to the blue one in the above charts.
Orange is alternative to red which doesn't change overall picture.
Daily may end up like this:
The triangle could resolve both ways actually, so don't take downside as granted. I simply think it's more likely.
Thick red line above is log TL since ATH. May not be positioned exactly as SC doesn't like log lines.
Open for discussion and criticism.
Don't want to put much text here but you can be sure that all of the smaller degree waves were carefully counted too.
So, mid-term, it seems to me like long triangle (or maybe flat).
Last month. (iv) and (i) of ((a)) of B don't overlap as it may be seen.
Red count corresponds to the blue one in the above charts.
Orange is alternative to red which doesn't change overall picture.
Daily may end up like this:
The triangle could resolve both ways actually, so don't take downside as granted. I simply think it's more likely.
Thick red line above is log TL since ATH. May not be positioned exactly as SC doesn't like log lines.
Open for discussion and criticism.
that A could be a B of (Z) (THE BOTTOM) and iii of (iii) of C of (Z) now starting
I dont see any reason to count it as a complex correction
what else this bear market could be? in ABC, C is too long
I thought you were talking about the local count... I think yeah the grand count is complex... Right here I dont think the correction is done or complex.
that A could be a B of (Z) (THE BOTTOM) and iii of (iii) of C of (Z) now starting
I dont see any reason to count it as a complex correction
what else this bear market could be? in ABC, C is too long
that A could be a B of (Z) (THE BOTTOM) and iii of (iii) of C of (Z) now starting
I dont see any reason to count it as a complex correction
that A could be a B of (Z) (THE BOTTOM) and iii of (iii) of C of (Z) now starting
i don't post charts but it could be WXY or ABC and it could be topping right now, we have pretty clear 5 waver with divergence between 3 and 5 for some C probably
Whatever the local count is, the larger count is moderately bullish. Its not impulsive to the downside. Notice how stamp bottomed on a lower low than china, that looked like a larger wave C terminating, it would imply that china bottomed on a failure.
Just noticed the above count, beat me to it, dang!
Its a fair triangle and a fitting failure, wave iii went surprisingly far (too far). This is when failure v's occur.
i don't post charts but it could be WXY or ABC and it could be topping right now, we have pretty clear 5 waver with divergence between 3 and 5 for some C probably
I would agree, but the drop so far imo looks fairly corrective in structure across the exchanges (although this could change quickly lol), and that potential triangle needs another, similarly sized move up to complete the subwave. While it could drop some more, I have a feeling we just finished (a) and have another, larger C-wave ahead of us. That or current c is not complete, but this seems unlikely considering, as you mention, the clear 5 wave structure and div confirmation. I guess time will tell.
The trouble is the higher degree count. Is it possible this impulse is not a C wave but rather a I or A wave in a new move up? It looks to me like the 1370-ish lows may have terminated an ABC already.
Hmmh, if this is an ABC I don't think it'd be possible, since a trend reversal requires an impulse of the previous trend directly preceding it (ie a 5), and as you say 1370-ish lows terminated an ABC, with the final spike being a pretty clear C which largely rules out a truncated 5th wave. However, it would be possible if Wave A and half of B are counted as a triangle, as then the spike down could could have been a 5th. But I am not sure if such a triangle would even be valid, as it doesn't form using the actual bottom of the larger move down as starting point, which I think is required for a triangle to be a continuation pattern of said larger move. Don't know if this is a specific EW requirement though
Something like this in such case:
Would that be valid?
The trouble is the higher degree count. Is it possible this impulse is not a C wave but rather a I or A wave in a new move up? It looks to me like the 1370-ish lows may have terminated an ABC already.
i don't post charts but it could be WXY or ABC and it could be topping right now, we have pretty clear 5 waver with divergence between 3 and 5 for some C probably
Jump to: