Stop it with the triangles already, if a method does fail multiple times it does not make sense to use it again till it works.
Its not the theory which fails, its the application.
Triangles need to be redrawn how many times necessary until they make the last form, which should show the characteristics of the breakout.
yes, but how many times are necessary? the technique you just described is exactly what many TA-naysayers hate -- constant re-drawing of arbitrary lines that wait for a confirmation to be validated after-the-fact. these methods are not predictive and are of little use.
--arepo
Oh yeah? How about your approach??? Is it more "functional"?
"Fuck scientific observation of proving points of view... my gut always gets the right answers, because im just a bull and this will never go down."
How different is that from... "hmm i think this definetly will go down... hhmm confirmation point for a trend change is $xx... oh $xx reached, this will go up!"
EDIT: one is BullShit, the other is open to change... ;P
Both sound like bullshit the way you just described them.
Its now how i described it... its about learning the method... stop wasting your time posting in this thread with ignorant comments... just go study TA for yourself and then come to this thread and share your views with lucif. Stop fucking criticizing without even taking your time to learn...
EDIT: if you only had the slightest crave to learn, at least you could have read in the triangle description that the descending triangle can break up too...
I never stated TA was bullshit, in fact I enjoy perusing through much of it. And it is about how you described it because that is what my comment was directed at. "hmm I think this will definitely go down.... wait.... no it's going to go up!" What's stopping you from reaching another "confirmation point", "wait.... no it's going to go down!" Sounds like a load of bullshit to me. Just because it's open to change doesn't prove anything if your analysis only accounts for what happens after the fact. And what you're saying is that the descending triangle can break up too? So it can go either up or down right? No way.... Also, arepo is not your typical bull, he is also a technical analyst so your comment there was off the mark as well. Perhaps you're the ignorant one.
If this is I of (C) then this is a descending triangle 4 of I of (C), which will make it to a II of (C) that will get to $150 or something like that (61% fibo retrace from $166 as of now. Would be lower, the lower I goes).
What every bull seems to want is for the price to go to $150 without completing the primery trend rules that is 5 waves in favor of trend and 3 contrary of trend.
If we had a bullish market until $266, then right now we are on primary down... doesnt matter how deflationary and how high bitcoin will go, it definetly is in a downtrend for now. And if that is the case then there should be 5 waves down now, we only have 4 since the $166 top of (B). if we have 5 waves down to $100 and then retrace to $150 then have another 5 waves down to maybe $80 or $60, then have another wave up to $120 then another wave to $32 then we have a text book complete correction and then we can go for the $3million or whatever price you think bitcoin should have.
The "i know TA, you are the ignorant one" comment is a recursive one... learn to play it well...
