Topic: CryptoWaves - Elliott Wave Analysis Blog - page 6. (Read 29175 times)

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.

I agree for the most part. If you spend as much time as I have watching charts and the real time order books like GoxLive or BTCCharts, you can see when momentum changes and trade based on that. I used to do this a lot for quick trades and bottom fishing. I don't have the time anymore to do this, so I use indicators as a major part of my analysis. My counts aren't meant as absolute future telling. I count to determine what is possible next to weigh the risk for which side I look for. Then I use indicators to confirm tops/bottoms and depending on the time frame I am trading, entry/exit points. On days that I have more time to devote to charts, I'll trade every wave of an impulse and most of the correction. To me, it's boring to be a buy and holder :-/

the eyes are best indicators. I dont use any others.

did you know that the brain can be trained to see using a digital signal from a digital camera passed through the nerves of the tongue? after some training, blind people have been able to navigate walking through a room using a digital camera, just like bats can fly with sonar.

I think some people seek consistency with indicators, but I think the inconsistency within a trader is the root of all our troubles.

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.
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

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

Here is an example showing that triangles are 3-3-3-3-3:
https://encrypted.google.com/books?id=lQ0OEmzM9tsC&lpg=PA52&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false

What are your forecasts? haven't seen any lately

A little closer for the count

EVERY C is 5 waves, ALWAYS!
http://www.forexhit.com/learn-forex/elliott-wave-principle.html
About half way down there is the section called flats, zig-zags, and irregulars.

The simple corrections (flats/zig-zags) have only 2 structures. 3-3-5 and 5-3-5, though a triangle can be called a "3" in the B wave.
3-3-3 and 3-3-3-3-3 are complex corrections.
Edit
To add to that last line, those 3-3-3's are subdivided into 5-3-5's

Overlaps inside motive waves are in diagonals. Leading or ending. No diagonal possible in wave 3.

Oops, yes, 3-3-5 indeed, not 3-3-3. Maybe I confused it with triangle where it is 3-3-3-3-3.

So 3-3-5 flat correction fits great. However it's not really flat, as B and C incline downward. Though, AFAIK, it's possible. If it is so we must reach $1k in five waves. 2 of them already complete. Would be invalidated if we go below 340.

Im sure that's not a rule, many ABC corrections are composed entirely of overlapping zigzags without a trace of impulsive behaviour. the standard model is corrections overlap, and impulsives do not.

In EVERY ABC the C is 5 waves. The A can be either 3 or 5 and the B is of course always 3, but the main thing is that C is 5 waves.
When you have a correction that has ABC ABC ABC then it's called a complex (sometimes called combination) correction and is labeled WXY. This is also known as double and triple zig-zags or double/triple threes, where you have two zig-zags labeled W,Y linked by a counter trend rally labeled X. In a triple zig-zag you have an additional zig-zag labeled Z and again separated by an Xx wave.
If you want more info on WXY's then just ask.


Yes, I was talking about the count from the ATH.

I believe the rise from $339 is indeed a zig-zag. It completely looks like two impulses but the correction after the second, invalidated it as a bullish motive.

yes, talking about ATH. 100% certain that A wave is a zigzag.

Erm... Or are you talking about waves from ATH? I meant possible zigzag from 340.

3-3-3 must be flat. But it's not flat, it's zigzag most likely. So we should count it as 5-3-5.

Unless it goes to 340 area again.

Im not banking on a primary wave, but the chart is tell me that alternatively a wave C is coming to 550 - 600. the market has turned unexpectedly (not to EW) after BAD news. it has fundamental drive.

my overall C wave divides into ABC. is that incorrect? abc - abc - abc is not uncommon?

Oh, thanks, now I understood. At first I thought it's a subdivision pattern, but that were numbers of waves.

Regarding last major C on the last graph, it could be easily subdivided into an impulse. Bigger A @400 could be treated as 3-rd, following B @700 - as 4th wave. Some of the subdivisions are extended.

The two problems I see with this chart is that 1) your large C should sub-divide into 5 waves not 3(ABC).
2) is that your I off the 339 bottom is not 5 waves, imo. I suppose it can be if you really force it, but not with any kind of proper proportions.

Edit:
To help better explain the 1-2-1-2 to Queeq
It is the same as nested 1-2's Call it an extended 3rd. Ex. I, II, 1, 2, 3, 4, III, IV, V

well 1-2-1-2 is a retrospecive form of primary, that looks just like an abc until wave a of the next leg turns around into a iii wave.
we had some really bad news yesterday, and the market has turned. this is not a short squeeze, I think it has fundamental drive. considering where we are in the larger picture, I am expecting a wave iii.

We don't know really if that's C or (III). They are indistinguishable at this stage.  But I think it's more likely to be C because previous wave down was more like B.

What is 1-2-1-2? I know only 5 and 3 combinations. These one-twos should subdivide.