A retracement to 105-6 is in order when the assault to 120 fails. This would be my original prediction from several hours ago.
I think that makes that resistance weaker, no?
I prefer to think that the strength of the resistance is important, but equally important is the move required to reach it. It is like marching armies to a battle. Sun Tzu writes:
If you march fifty LI in order to outmaneuver the enemy, you will lose the leader of your first division, and only half your force will reach the goal.
If you march thirty LI with the same object, two-thirds of your army will arrive.
You have a certain buying pressure, but if you want to conquer something that is 100 li (about 25%) away, no matter how weak it is, you will certainly fall. After such a move, sellers smell any sign of blood, and the 61% retracement is sure to happen. (This is pretty much my trading strategy: only sell after this move, because you cannot really lose)
If you need to advance 50 li (12.5%) and then demolish the wall, half of the buying pressure is already relieved, and likely the wall will hold. Even if it falls, the chances are great that the region will be revisited sooner or later.
After 30 li (7.5%) you have a mighty power to attack a wall, but even then, the victory is not sure.
Depending of the strength of the resistance, it should take up to 4 assaults to conquer it. No matter how strongly you destroy the wall, the region will be revisited. From hindsight, it was not a surprise that $50 support defended 4 intraday assaults during the mid-April crash. It took 5 assaults to conquer it when it was a resistance.
I admit I was wrong with my $115 never again call. I just did not see any stronger holds than $121 which was the 1st retracement of the 50->167 move. My fundamental analysis bias is also there. I see sub-1000 bitcoin as so insanely great a buy that I have a hard time differentiating between 134 and 78, although I probably should...
That's better, you can do it when you decide to not act stupid.