profghibli
Giá xuống

Possible bearish count for BTCUSD

BITSTAMP:BTCUSD   Bitcoin / Đô la
So I had a bit of trouble with some inconsistencies in the subwave count of wave A, and being a noob, this is the best thing I came up with (I may be very wrong, if so, please correct me).

The good news is that this different count makes sense and that also it still leaves the possibility of the original A_B_C correction as we expected, with C being under $3000.

The green vertical line is the date that as far as I understood was what Sheba Jafari said the correction should last at the least to (very iffy, might be wrong to either side).

So with the problems with the wave counts - afaik there is no possible 3-5-smth correction. And our A wave is clearly a 3 wave (unless the "news-shockwave" pattern invalidates the waves count), and this B wave has 3 problems: 1) wave 4 is very very close to the wave 1, which is undesirable, 2) the time it takes to make waves 1-3 = time it takes from end of wave 3 to end of wave 5, which is not respected in this case 3) wave 3 and 4 are very small compared to massive waves 1 and 2, which is also making it kind of questionable.

So, if we think of this B wave as a 3 wave, we get a bunch of stuff resolved, particularly - we avoid all those small nuances that I just stated above that make this a questionable impulse wave, next we avoid having a 3-5-x correction, which makes no sense, we uphold the major A-B-C correction.

In case this correction happens to be a zigzag type, we will see C wave going lower than A wave end and the most likely targets are indicated on the graph. 2400s being my most likely C end, but 1800s are also on the bench.

In case we get some bullshit type of correction as a flat (which so far it looks to be), C will still be lower than A, but just slightly, thus making the target around 2800s.

In case we get some triangle correction, I probably won't be able to figure out the end of wave C, but then it wouldn't have to be lower than A wave.

Good luck!

Bình luận: Sheba Jafari reference:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/14/goldman-sachs-says-bitcoin-may-rise-about-500-more.html
Bình luận: Really interesting article, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/bitcoin-bubble-dwarfs-tulip-mania-from-400-years-ago-elliott-wave.html

what is the most interesting part is that it's another Elliot Waves champion, son of Robert Prechter, but his wave count differs from Goldman Sachs' Sheba Jafari's count.
Bình luận: OK, so although this thing is possible to count as a major expanded flat correction, everything looks grim for the bears.

Coinbase adding instant purchase: https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/918506741377130496

Gemini distributing BCH to their users (which they likely will dump into BTC), that happened yesterday.

I am not sure if my count is correct anymore. The only 1 positive thing I can say is that most traders that DO follow this market, have already bought BTC, the buying pressure will likely to dry up soon. However, this is crypto an it burned many shorters before and burned me this time.
I like your chart. I have a similar view, but after the first ABC, I have an X which is a chaining wave that effectively links 2 ABC waves, as per Elliot Wave Theory. Then we have the second A beginning where your second A ends, followed by second B, where you have a black B, and second C just about to start. In Elliot Wave Theory this double three is know as WXY, where W is the first ABC, and Y is the second ABC, linked by a 3 wave X. Similarly this could also extend to a triple three, or WXYXZ, where W, Y, and Z are all ABC corrections, and the two X's are chaining waves. Anyway, just thought I'd share since I was thinking along the same lines as you before delving a little deeper into Elliott Wave Theory to understand corrective patterns. Thanks for sharing!
Phản hồi
hey, Im a noob as you probably know:) could you mark the waves on your chart? the 1,2,3,4 Im really trying to understand but i think im just to new to this game? thanks!
Phản hồi
profghibli PaulSimmons
@PaulSimmons, here is the bigger wavecount if that's what you mean:

The point where 5 ends is the end of the wave 3 of the higher order.
Phản hồi
profghibli profghibli
@profghibli, as you can see, the guidelines for EWs are respected here:

1) a big retracement for wave 1 (but not more than 100%)

2) the "connect wave 2 and wave 4 with a line and draw a parallel line to it starting from the wave 3 top or wave 1 top (in our case 3), and that's where wave 5 will terminate.

3) Wave 4 not retracing into wave 1 territory

4) wave 3 being the longest one

5) wave 5 being weaker, with some divergences (slight divergence in volume, some RSI divergence

Keep in mind, there are people who dedicated decades to this craft, they may see some mistakes here, I have just took up EWs last month, so I may be wrong. But this is correct to my best knowledge. Also, when we had this wave 3, Sheba Jafari was also labeling it as wave 3. So I also can appeal to her count :)
Phản hồi
PaulSimmons profghibli
@profghibli, tnx alot
Phản hồi
VI Tiếng Việt
EN English
EN English (UK)
EN English (IN)
DE Deutsch
FR Français
ES Español
IT Italiano
PL Polski
SV Svenska
TR Türkçe
RU Русский
PT Português
ID Bahasa Indonesia
MS Bahasa Melayu
TH ภาษาไทย
JA 日本語
KO 한국어
ZH 简体中文
ZH 繁體中文
AR العربية
Trang chủ Sàng lọc cổ phiếu Công cụ tìm kiếm tín hiệu Forex Tìm kiếm tín hiệu Cryptocurrency Lịch kinh tế Cách thức hoạt động Tính năng Biểu đồ Quy tắc Áp dụng Người kiểm duyệt Giải pháp Website & Môi giới Widget Thư viện Biểu đồ Chứng khoán Yêu cầu tính năng Blog & Tin tức Câu hỏi thường gặp Hỗ trợ & Wiki Twitter
Hồ sơ Tùy chỉnh Hồ sơ Tài khoản và Thanh toán Ticket Hỗ trợ của tôi Liên hệ Hỗ trợ Các ý tưởng đã đăng Người theo dõi Đang theo dõi Tin nhắn riêng Trò chuyện Đăng xuất