Pages:
Author

Topic: CryptoWaves - Elliott Wave Analysis Blog - page 5. (Read 29200 times)

legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary
This count is for the situation where the $339 low was the end of a large ABC making a larger A and we are in a big B now. If this were to come to fruition, the B could technically make new ATH's before revisiting $339 and possibly below.

Like very big flat? Either extended or running?

Yes!
A flat would end somewhere near the $339 low +/- a few percent.

A running flats C would fall short but still must be at least 61.8% of the Larger A and the irregular flat would end below $339 somewhere.
These are only if the B makes a new higher high. If not, then the C would likely go below the $339 low and accelerate. Especially if the B goes to 700 or higher, many would see that as a failure to make new ATH's (not necessarily a Bitcoin failure) and thus, the bear market is not over and would start jumping ship to either bottom fish, or just to cut losses/take profits. The C would probably be only a few weeks shorter than the A since December, so too long for some.

Again, this is a long time away, IF it happens. That's a big if.
sr. member
Activity: 427
Merit: 250
This count is for the situation where the $339 low was the end of a large ABC making a larger A and we are in a big B now. If this were to come to fruition, the B could technically make new ATH's before revisiting $339 and possibly below.

Like very big flat? Either extended or running?
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary
What is this count? I don't know about it.

Yes, it's still may be corrective and could be treated as corrective up to 750.

This count is for the situation where the $339 low was the end of a large ABC making a larger A and we are in a big B now. If this were to come to fruition, the B could technically make new ATH's before revisiting $339 and possibly below.
sr. member
Activity: 427
Merit: 250
What is this count? I don't know about it.

Yes, it's still may be corrective and could be treated as corrective up to 750.
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary
What would you guys say if this happened?


Wait! Before you go shooting this down, one thing to consider, that keeps this kind of count alive is that this rise (so far) seems very corrective still. To get a 3 waver making the first higher high since December would make this even more plausible. I would be inclined to move this count up a few notches on my likeliness scale if that happened.
sr. member
Activity: 427
Merit: 250

I like your counts. First one the most as it has clear subwave patterns. However, there are some inconsistencies.
1: wave B subdivided into an impulse with deep 2nd wave and flat 4th. Everything else fits perfectly, especially subcount of wave c and their sub-subcounts. If we go up from now it's confirmed.
2: Wave iii of 5 is not an impulse, but rather a diagonal, and as we know they don't appear in 3rd waves. I guess this one is invalidated.
3: Wave 2, again, looks more like an impulse. I think last price action invalidated this one as well.

Also, could you please include volume in your graphs in the future?

Thanks for sharing your work.

#1 I do see what you count there and I'll just answer with this
While it can be counted as an impulse (red) I chose to count it corrective (yellow) because the price fell below the red dotted line, thereby invalidating an impulsive count there.


#2 I'm not sure which iii of 5... 5 of B?

The labellings are slightly different so I could have the extra degree labels.

#3 I'm guessing you are referring to points in the first chart still?




#1: Yeah, looked closer at BTC-e chart, it's really more like a-b-c.

#2: Major wave V from red line above to the very bottom. Its wave 3 subdivided as i-ii-iii-iv-v, I had question about this subdivision. Well, at this zoom looks reasonable. I thought it had intersections like a diagonal.

#3: This was about the third image. Wave 1 - leading diagonal down. Wave 2, yes, like an impulse that was discussed in the first image. However that is clear now.

As a conclusion, I still think #1 forecast is the most accurate.
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary
Yea, and if this count is correct (big flat after ATH), then we are at the beginning of new rally. So all we need to know now is if we are inside 2nd or b wave. I guess it would become clear around 600-700.
thanks,
and in your opinion, or anyone else, how does this shape up to the 266 low alternative?
I think 266 is a highly sentimental number, never will be touched. and more significantly, to forecast any further lows is dismissing some serious divergance.



The most serious of divergences is the volume. Any other divergence can be neutralized with a day of high volume, sharp drop off. Which is why I don't just dismiss anything as impossible.

About your chart, that is pretty much my Bitstamp count, though Bitstamp has a little more going on with it.
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary

I like your counts. First one the most as it has clear subwave patterns. However, there are some inconsistencies.
1: wave B subdivided into an impulse with deep 2nd wave and flat 4th. Everything else fits perfectly, especially subcount of wave c and their sub-subcounts. If we go up from now it's confirmed.
2: Wave iii of 5 is not an impulse, but rather a diagonal, and as we know they don't appear in 3rd waves. I guess this one is invalidated.
3: Wave 2, again, looks more like an impulse. I think last price action invalidated this one as well.

Also, could you please include volume in your graphs in the future?

Thanks for sharing your work.

#1 I do see what you count there and I'll just answer with this
While it can be counted as an impulse (red) I chose to count it corrective (yellow) because the price fell below the red dotted line, thereby invalidating an impulsive count there.


#2 I'm not sure which iii of 5... 5 of B?

The labellings are slightly different so I could have the extra degree labels.

#3 I'm guessing you are referring to points in the first chart still?

legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
Yea, and if this count is correct (big flat after ATH), then we are at the beginning of new rally. So all we need to know now is if we are inside 2nd or b wave. I guess it would become clear around 600-700.
thanks,
and in your opinion, or anyone else, how does this shape up to the 266 low alternative?
I think 266 is a highly sentimental number, never will be touched. and more significantly, to forecast any further lows is dismissing some serious divergance.

sr. member
Activity: 427
Merit: 250
I think critical level is at 670-700. It's 1.618 of our current i/a wave and also is the end of previous 4th wave. C-wave should end there.
sr. member
Activity: 427
Merit: 250
Yea, and if this count is correct (big flat after ATH), then we are at the beginning of new rally. So all we need to know now is if we are inside 2nd or b wave. I guess it would become clear around 600-700.
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
RuNinDaClem, C = impulse. I hadn't looked for it before you assured me that it had to be an impulse, but it actually seems better than the zigzag earlier. This is cearly five waves, the last clearly terminal, and diverging.

what are your thoughts on this? or have you covered this already?

sr. member
Activity: 427
Merit: 250

Absolutely! Triangles are always 3-3-3-3-3. But because they are comprised of all 3 wave structures, they can be counted as the 3 (B) in the case of 3-3-5 (flats) or 5-3-5 (zig-zags).

As far as my forecasts, I have 2 scenarios as my most likely counts, and one of those have a slight alternative.
Bullish shorter term (days-weeks). It's an ABC where the C is under way. Target between $550 (flat) and $605 (zig-zag). If 605 is broken then I would consider the nested 1-2's as a likely candidate rather than ABC. Use indicators to determine how far it will go as it unfolds.


One more wave down before the C


Bearish count of Doom. Tongue
This count retests the $339 low and either double bottoms for the potential end of the bear market or breaks through and continues as low as $100. $100 is not likely, but as a potential wave 2, it is possible. I have no definite targets here, yet, because we'll have to see how things are going IF we go there.


Where we are right now (22:20UTC) could be that 4 top before the final push down for B in my alt bull count. It also corresponds to the iv of 1 of C (or the 2 of C in the case of a leading diagonal). This small pull back was expected and I will expand my position if we see $435 before heading higher. If not, then I look at it as the iv of 1 of C option and I wait until the 2 to get in more.

I hope that is clear for everyone who frontruns it Tongue

Edit
This is why you don't use EW alone Wink
There are too many variables to it and it can burn you. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS use other indicators to back up your trade.

I like your counts. First one the most as it has clear subwave patterns. However, there are some inconsistencies.
1: wave B subdivided into an impulse with deep 2nd wave and flat 4th. Everything else fits perfectly, especially subcount of wave c and their sub-subcounts. If we go up from now it's confirmed.
2: Wave iii of 5 is not an impulse, but rather a diagonal, and as we know they don't appear in 3rd waves. I guess this one is invalidated.
3: Wave 2, again, looks more like an impulse. I think last price action invalidated this one as well.

Also, could you please include volume in your graphs in the future?

Thanks for sharing your work.
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary
well if thats the hard EW rules, ok. I just fell like its the same either way - consolidation. contracting liquidty, contracting range. The c wave was rudely interrupted by news, so possibly it was a failed c wave, but I'll give your analysis benefit of the doubt.


I'm not saying to follow my counts. You have the ability to count, so you should count it and re count it and when you think you have it, count it again. Weigh your options, gauge risk, then count again. You can come up with many counts for the same group of waves so don't be overly biased in one direction or the other. One more piece of advice would be to always start with a significant low or high. I know you stated somewhere that you start at the ATH, well good! Do that every time and you will continue to be successful with EW.

sure, but the point of the thread is discuss, and maybe reach consensus. In an EW thread I'd give preference to your count, although I would only use it if it inspired me to. 

Absolutley! Smiley
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
well if thats the hard EW rules, ok. I just fell like its the same either way - consolidation. contracting liquidty, contracting range. The c wave was rudely interrupted by news, so possibly it was a failed c wave, but I'll give your analysis benefit of the doubt.


I'm not saying to follow my counts. You have the ability to count, so you should count it and re count it and when you think you have it, count it again. Weigh your options, gauge risk, then count again. You can come up with many counts for the same group of waves so don't be overly biased in one direction or the other. One more piece of advice would be to always start with a significant low or high. I know you stated somewhere that you start at the ATH, well good! Do that every time and you will continue to be successful with EW.

sure, but the point of the thread is discuss, and maybe reach consensus. In an EW thread I'd give preference to your count, although I would only use it if it inspired me to. 
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary
well if thats the hard EW rules, ok. I just fell like its the same either way - consolidation. contracting liquidty, contracting range. The c wave was rudely interrupted by news, so possibly it was a failed c wave, but I'll give your analysis benefit of the doubt.


I'm not saying to follow my counts. You have the ability to count, so you should count it and re count it and when you think you have it, count it again. Weigh your options, gauge risk, then count again. You can come up with many counts for the same group of waves so don't be overly biased in one direction or the other. One more piece of advice would be to always start with a significant low or high. I know you stated somewhere that you start at the ATH, well good! Do that every time and you will continue to be successful with EW.
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
well if thats the hard EW rules, ok. I just fell like its the same either way - consolidation. contracting liquidty, contracting range. The c wave was rudely interrupted by news, so possibly it was a failed c wave, but I'll give your analysis benefit of the doubt.
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary
RyNinDaCleM, can you comment on my B wave wedge intrpretation? It seems to stand out to me as the most obvious interpretation, considering that this bear run is weaker than the previous bull run - while I think your primary count is very clever.

- im talking aout this one.




To be a triangle, it needs to have 5 distinct waves and each wave needs 3 subwaves.
If the first rise after your a=x then the final rise to make your b needs to be at least x*.618 in length to be a valid C. It is not, so I wouldn't count your triangle as it's own abc either.

there are many species of triangles no?
wedges describe the case where wave c fails to exceed the extreme of wave a. this is not a 'triangle'.

A wedge from an EW point of view is a triangle in the sense that it has converging lines and therefore is not a channel. However, wedges are found in impulsive waves (1, 5, A, C) and both trend lines are ascending, or both are descending. Triangles are corrective continuation patterns. The direction entered is the direction leaving.
Take this schematic. It shows how bearish and bullish triangles are expected to behave. The only thing it doesn't show is expanding triangles which follow the same rules, but have diverging trend lines. One thing to notice about triangles is that the top line is either flat or descending and the bottom line is either flat or ascending.


An ABC where the C fails to make a new price extreme is a failed C. It also happens in running flats (where B makes a new price extreme and C falls short of the end of A).

When a triangle has less than 5 waves and breaks out/down, then there is another count for the pattern than a triangle. It wasn't a triangle! Since yours had an A,B and most of a C then I would automatically change to a 1-2 of some degree since  a higher high was not made and it holds the rules of a wave 2.

I think the wedge you are referring to is the wedge commonly used by general pattern recognition. In EW, a wedge (diagonal triangle) has rules to adhere to.
legendary
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
RyNinDaCleM, can you comment on my B wave wedge intrpretation? It seems to stand out to me as the most obvious interpretation, considering that this bear run is weaker than the previous bull run - while I think your primary count is very clever.

- im talking aout this one.




To be a triangle, it needs to have 5 distinct waves and each wave needs 3 subwaves.
If the first rise after your a=x then the final rise to make your b needs to be at least x*.618 in length to be a valid C. It is not, so I wouldn't count your triangle as it's own abc either.

there are many species of triangles no?
wedges describe the case where wave c fails to exceed the extreme of wave a. this is not a 'triangle'.
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary
RyNinDaCleM, can you comment on my B wave wedge intrpretation? It seems to stand out to me as the most obvious interpretation, considering that this bear run is weaker than the previous bull run - while I think your primary count is very clever.

- im talking aout this one.




To be a triangle, it needs to have 5 distinct waves and each wave needs 3 subwaves.
If the first rise after your a=x then the final rise to make your b needs to be at least x*.618 in length to be a valid C. It is not, so I wouldn't count your triangle as it's own abc either.
Pages:
Jump to: