I can only see lazy if you are talking about the fact that he didn't count the subwaves to figure it out for himself, but how is it wrong?
Well if you can count a wave being 300%+ longer than the other waves, and ignoring the ones you don't like, ok. You can just invent whatever system you want, but don't call it Elliot Waves. Let's have some respect for methodology.
This whole thread is just make-believe-draw-lines-everywhere bullshit. Too much scribbling noise. This needs to stop.
Instead, as you can see on my pictures, which are back to back charts from the start of the bitcoin market until now, the Elliot Waves are pretty clear and respect the methodology. I don't even need to draw lines or numbers (small deviations for the 30$ and 15$ bubbles being ahead of schedule, and this summer's bubble being the most noise drowned one).
What comes up next should be a higher level wave (2015-2017) at a higher price, with the same 4 small waves spaced apart by 8 months, and then a higher level wave at lower price and the cycle is complete. The Halfening is also scheduled in early 2016, which can correspond to the top "5" peak.
Or maybe he is right and I am wrong, in which case using the correct methodology is useless for preparing for the future and we can stop posting on this thread.
Waves are ever evolving. Ever growing in degree. Just because he has the top of a 5th wave doesn't mean it's the end of all possible counts.
The charts you posted are interpreted as such in the attempt to show that trololol's count is as valid as they come. Not necessarily the most ideal count, but valid none the less.
his count with a bit of alteration.
your first chart
Your second chart
I don't see where I don't follow methodology.
300% movement is irrelevant. EW is based on price movement and as long as the 3rd wave isn't the shortest, it fulfills all requirements of EW. Guide lines (which aren't rules) are the only thing bent here.
