Topic: EW learning/counting topic (Read 1637 times)

Any good material to read in order to learn EW ?? I just finished Elder's most famous book, now going through market wizards.

I acquired Glenn Neely book (Mastering Elliot Waves) any critics and other recommendation?

Cheers in advance.

Watch out for this, could destroy some bulls

Now I understand, regarding EW, it looks like the month incomming will be crucial for btc holders return.

This count implies more up. This would be either 4 of C of (B) where (B) is the counter trend rally of a prolonged bear market, or (b) of Y of (B) where 504 from November was W, the 6 month triangle was X and the 789 touch was a of Y. Either case has more up, but how much more is yet to be determined. This correction can definitely be much longer and yesterday's low was only A, but much lower really starts to make the C of (B) idea look bad.

By nested, I meant the C down in my chart may have nested waves in it and that the C is not yet complete.

Thank you again RyNinDaCleM. I had a similar count but our current low would be only A even though this one looks better. But is this count nested in your overall bearish picture ? if yes, I may have misunderstood something. When in a bearish market, shouldn't we count 5 impulsive waves when going down and 3 corrective waves while going up?

I made this count last night, but now I'm thinking there are more nested waves in there and one more down is possible. It is also possible that this ABC is only making up a larger A

You are right, rules are broken on waves (1), even cross checking amongst several exchange as you already adviced me to do, rules still being broken, so this view doesn't work.

Thank you again for the info from which I am learning a lot. But now I am afraid do someone have a bullish count? I can't find a good way to count after what I see as a C waves in my bullish count is finished, and your count is still being validated as time pass.

Moreover, what do you call the C waves (bold sentence)?

Personally, I don't think your (1) holds the rules even a little bit. The subwave 3 wouldn't have even made a hh over 1...

Anyway, in a zigzag, wave B should retrace 50-61.8% of A, and flats get deeper retraces, usually 61.8 to 100%. There are sources that say 80%+ is mandatory, but in bitcoin, there are some different dynamics that allow for lesser retraces. Namely the reluctance to do anything iif deep pockets aren't already moving. This is clearly visible in the current down stroke. There wasn't even a 23.6% retrace until the C that then moved ~$200. By that time, it is too late to sell.

Channels aren't always held. China markets hold channels and trend lines better than the west, but they all break down if sideways moves stagnate too long anyway.

Finally got a count on btc which is similar to the one of masterluc (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15329177)



Any though?

How much is waves B supposed to retrace in a flat correction ? and a zig zag ? I have got forecast for C waves (using fibo retracement, plus previous waves four of one lesser degree) depending on B retracement, but I wanted to know how much one should assume B will retrace ?

Moreover, one issue with this count is that chaneling does not work ? is this a matter or it can happen ?

Agree with that, we can see both of the point you mentionned in your topic  Anyway, I am still holding until I get really confident with my trading skills (few more month i think), but those result are very interesting.

Its what many people dont appreciate about it. It is an excellent principle, but it is also a very real theory.

Looks like counting waves can help in trading (even when the count reveals to be incorrect  , probably luck of the beginner):

Fundamentals don't matter in EW because when it's something known by the entire market, it is factored in to the individuals trading. The individuals is what makes up the market, and the aggregate of the market psychology is what makes EW work. imo, the only time a fundamental can break EW is when it's something unknown at this time. Even then, it's arguable that some people know it before the rest of the market and the effect can be seen in the price sooner than info is released. EW alone isn't as much "predictive" as it is a way to find all possible outcomes using already known data. Sometimes, there are many possible outcomes so it is up to the analyst to try and figure out the probabilities of each count.

Understood, so that could make sense why It's hard to count on BTC right now and give more credit to RyNinDaCleM count.


EW > Halving :

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-274613

The original poster "Sandiman" posts non-stop trying to hype IPO scamcoins, so of course he's going to conjure some bearish BTC chart out of his ass to try and make his scamcoins go up while trying to get people to make believe scamcoins are a "hedge" against BTC price.  The halving is a fundamental, it does not show up in a chart.  If your methodology had any value, you would have been able to create a chart showing what the price is now when the price was $430.  You draw some bogus chart claiming a retracement is mandatory even if the cost of production doubles.  Sorry, but the cost of production trumps any of this bogus shit.

Imo counting the bear market is no use to us, it is a combination of some sort but very ambiguous. Not all bear markets have to finish at the extreme low in terms of EW which makes it even more difficult. I think the best we can do is use bold clues within the local bull market to determine if we are ready for the next great impulse.

So here's my count for BTC since last 1200 (I know, I should look before as well), and I couldn't really count after october cause the rule of non overlap is systematically broken for count that looks valid in this context. But i've got a little idea. Since the volume that we are seeing is considerably lower than the one at the beginning of the movement, I am tempted to think that we are in the 1st leg of a bullish trend.
Regarding the ABC waves, this count looks interesting because volume patterns are respected. Each A has higher volume that B waves, and C waves always have the more volume regarding the corrective waves (looks at the 3rd waves of the last C, highlighting the whole point here).
I would like to know what people think about this count?


Here are some count for ETH, chart that I found really interesting (and intrigating):


First of all, this chart for me is less promessing that the following one (please inverse the 3and4). the 1st of the impulsive waves are more volume and power (look at the divergences) than the third (couldn't make it third ?) which is rare (I wouldn't see why the first leg up would be extended). Moreover, if what we are now witnessing is the creation of the A waves, god damn, the C wave would broke the chart with the volume bar.


here is my favorite of the two. Now that much comment about the 5 impulsive wave except that again, the first waves has more volume/strengh that the 3rd and 5st. the corrective pattern should be a flat correction (3-3-5) in this case and it can for the two first waves be counted like it. Volume is rather equal amongst A and B waves which is not normal but not a negative sign (we should see a higher volume in B than A for a negative sign I assume). What looks as positive in this counting is that the impulse waves had more volume/strengh that the B waves, even though we went to an ATH, giving credit to the flat corrective pattern. and then, waves C, that could have started now is on a much higher volume that both A and B.

Please don't hesitate to critisize those count and add value to the topic.

I can agree with you, but the point of this topic is too understand and forecast those move (even though in this case I am struggling on how to count waves on the ETH chart when yesterday it looked beautiful  )

While waiting for someone to find a count for eth that looks like it broke all the bullish rules, I wanted to ask RyNinDaCleM about his count :



While trying to count waves from around august last year, and looking also at the bearish point of view, I realise that this counting may have an issue. I was reading about volume pattern in corrective waves, and B wave should have a lower volume than A wave. What do you think of that since it is not the case at all ? You could argue that market participation has grown, but isn't this point suppose to be already included in volume pattern ? (maybe it is only included in motive waves?).

I think you have to look at the fundamentals too, otherwise technical analysis is pointless.

The fact that Vitalin Buterik is panicking about people panic selling and wants exchanges to stop all trading of ETH, is very worrisome, and to me this can only mean down regardless what TA says about it.

Cheers again for the advice, carefully saved in my brain !!! I remember now hearing that in the videos of elliotwaves.com, but didn't though at all to compare with other non-margin market.

So I'll show you probably my count on BTC this afternoon, but right now I am working on ETH and I really think it is a good case to study as this "crash" probably invalidated most of the count. So now what I've got is that we could just have finished a B waves?



As you can see below, all count of impulse wave have been invalidated, which makes ETH chart really interesting to learn right now. So what about that idea that we just completed a B waves ?

Another question, how would you guys count your waves on ETH chart ? against FIAT or BTC ? ETH/BTC has much more volume, but I am not sure it reflect the "psychology" of buyer toward eth, but more the price of eth following btc.