The Last Dance: Bulls Win (Bitcoin)
已更新
You really have to love the market psychology at play here. Those who were bullish at the top, and stayed bullish all the way down, are now bearish. 6x,xxx bitcoin was cheap...sub 20k bitcoin is expensive. 250k was imminent, now 30k is not happening 'any time soon'. Nothing new under the son in these markets my frens : )
We here at LARP have been bullish on Bitcoin since July when we were able to determine that time had expired on the downtrend, at the time of this determination the price was $21,xxx or so.
While it's difficult for all who are not in the category of the BFTBITW (by far the best in the world) to understand our sophisticated analysis, it is quite easy to understand it's conclusions. In short, we were looking for a wave B rally that would take us to the $40-50k range (more conservatively a minimum of 35k and more aggressively a run to test or even break ATHs). None of that has changed except for the current price being a bit lower (in the 16xxx's at the time of writing), which is but a gift for anyone who has been bullish on the market, and perhaps more importantly, understands *why they have been bullish. Our goals here at LARP revolve around catching the major market moves before they happen, a notion lost on short-term 'traders' who come and go (usually go), and who's success depends upon cooperation and submission to the current market cycle's 'market maker' (the actual cadavers that show up post-facto much less relevant than an understanding of the function).
If you made money on the futures-based ETF rally or on the recent drop, good for you, yet to do so absent an understanding of what these
moves mean in the larger context of the markte cycle is not only not impressive, but likely a recipe for failure. We were quite presciently bearish at 6x,xxx and remained so until $21,xxx. If you have been bearish for the last couple of months you have no idea what you are talking about...an exception could be made if you were bearish at 6x,xxx and remained bearish until say today's prices, yet in reality, that presumes you actually had a supporting predictive rationale that both successfully anticipated the top of the market *and forsaw this past drop. In reality, we are unaware of anyone who can claim such, and more importantly, from our view such a feat would have likely excluded the possibility of the market to have bottomed earlier, which while it did not materialize, was a very realistic possibility (and we would argue) probability.
Let's talk waves. B-b-b-ut you said Time expired and yet we went lower! You were 'wrong'. Actually, no, the fact that we went lower, and the fashion in which we did so, only further supports the 'overextension' of the trend. Even if your evaluation of being 'right' or 'wrong' is limited what actually materializes in the market, it is waaay too early to proclaim such a ridiculous notion, as
65K, 55k, 45k, and $35 bulls of the past year seemed to find out.
Moving along to elliot wave...here is our most recent update to "the Big Long" chart:
So juan might ask, what changed?
Well, essentially this analysis was correct in determining (both through the process of elimination of potential counts over time as well as the negation any other counts which would disagree with our analysis) that we are in a 'standard' (as opposed to 'non -standard') flat correction which began with the 2021 market top and is currently ending in a terminal. Now, given the recent drop, we can say that the count inverse ineffectively changes in it's direct construction to better account for the 'overextension' of the trend.
Early on, the potential for largest degree A to have been complete was best explained using the various potential counts that would fall into the category of 'non standard' corrections. Eventually, the price action evolved such that juan could reasonably justify the possibility of a (directly determined) impulse existing in the position of wave C. The best way to explain this possibility was mainly from the perspectives of complexity and channeling. Now, with the elimination of our triple combination ending in a non-limiting triangle count, we can say that this terminal impulse is the only count left standing. Interestingly enough, the inverse ineffective change of the entire count actually does not change it's complexity *level.
Let's break this new count. Purple numbers 1-5 represent the largest degree of an extended 5th wave impulse. Purple wave 5 is the both the extended and most subdivided wave, which is usually the case. It's sub-waves are composed of red numbers 1-5 which are also an extended 5th wave impulse. Red wave 5's sub-waves are composed of black numbers 1-5, an extended 1st wave terminal impulse.
From a complexity standpoint, largest wave C subdivides so we know that it is automatically level 1 or higher, we can figure out the rest based on the most complex (level-wise) sub-impulse which is wave 5. Similarly, purple wave 5 subdivides meaning a minimum level of 1, purples most
complex wave is red wave 5. Red wave 5 is composed of a terminal impulse, numbers 1-5 in black, thus a base level of zero to start (beaty method). Now we bring it all together. Black wave 3 is the most subdivided impulse (corrective construction) independent of extension. By virtue of the fact that black wave 3 subdivides into a-b-c of a zig zag, we can say that it is a minimum level of 1.
While the direct construction of A of this zig zag admittedly does, itself, subdivide, the fact that wave C is usually equal or more complex than wave A would support the idea that wave A is actually what we call a 'complex mono' (here determined directly). Extended wave 1 of this terminal impulse subdivides into a non-standard correction (double zig zag) with a missing x wave. By the book, a double zig zag compared to single zig zag, both of which subdivide, would be equal in that they are of level 1 complexity. In our view, a double zig zag is actually slightly more complex at what we call a 'meta-complexity' level. In this case, we consider wave 3 to be the 'more' complex of the two at a meta-complexity level due to the existence of a 'complex mono' ...none of this being so important but perhaps interesting to contemplate.
To sum it all up, we add back our complexity level 1 of black wave 3 (really slightly more than 1 (really slightly more than slightly more than 1)) to the base level complexity of a terminal (0) in order to get a total of 1. Then, we add 1 back to our base level 1 of the larger red impulse in order to get a total of 2. Then, we add 2 back to our base level of 1 of the larger purple impulse in order to get a grand total of level 3 for largest wave C.
Finally, we can talk about our purple impulse more generally, moving from left to right. As you can see, as we move forward sub-waves increase in relevant relative price, time, and complexity. Wave 1 is small, short, and simple. Wave 2, a running correction which 'moves the angle of the dangle' is longer. Wave 3 is bigger and more complex than wave 1, and quite nicely equals ~ the accumulated time of waves 1 and 2. Wave 4, an unchannelable zig zag, is longer than all that preceded it (.618 relationship to 3), alternates well with wave 2 in it's increase in price (negative retracement(shallow)-->positive retracement(deep)), and properly precedes the extended wave 5 as the more complex, time-consuming wave of the two. Wave 5 itself is a 5th extension within the larger 5th extension which concludes with an extended 1st terminal. It is by far the largest and most complex impulsive wave of the three.
Why again did the price crash out of nowhere? Because the guy said the things about the things that happened in the first half of the year? Wait, and this revealed to the general public that an exchange has much less bitcoin than they should actually have?
Oh I know I know, it was because the guy (head of one exchange) sold the other exchanges (largely insignificant in the grand scheme of things) token, and this token that no one had ever even heard of before crashed cAuSiNg a cAsCaDe of selling (or at least in theory). Wait, why did he even have this token in the first place? Hmm. That's an interesting question. But I know I know, everyone needs to be really worried about 'contagion' says the guy who, by his own admission, started it? But wait, contagion of what? Everyone suddenly realizing the potential that all of the exchanges *dont have enough bitcoin* ? And this is supposed to be bearish? Ehl oh ehl. I'm not saying there is any truth to it, but regardless, to frame any of this as bearish has no basis in logic.
But heck, what do we know? With that we leave you : )
We here at LARP have been bullish on Bitcoin since July when we were able to determine that time had expired on the downtrend, at the time of this determination the price was $21,xxx or so.
While it's difficult for all who are not in the category of the BFTBITW (by far the best in the world) to understand our sophisticated analysis, it is quite easy to understand it's conclusions. In short, we were looking for a wave B rally that would take us to the $40-50k range (more conservatively a minimum of 35k and more aggressively a run to test or even break ATHs). None of that has changed except for the current price being a bit lower (in the 16xxx's at the time of writing), which is but a gift for anyone who has been bullish on the market, and perhaps more importantly, understands *why they have been bullish. Our goals here at LARP revolve around catching the major market moves before they happen, a notion lost on short-term 'traders' who come and go (usually go), and who's success depends upon cooperation and submission to the current market cycle's 'market maker' (the actual cadavers that show up post-facto much less relevant than an understanding of the function).
If you made money on the futures-based ETF rally or on the recent drop, good for you, yet to do so absent an understanding of what these
moves mean in the larger context of the markte cycle is not only not impressive, but likely a recipe for failure. We were quite presciently bearish at 6x,xxx and remained so until $21,xxx. If you have been bearish for the last couple of months you have no idea what you are talking about...an exception could be made if you were bearish at 6x,xxx and remained bearish until say today's prices, yet in reality, that presumes you actually had a supporting predictive rationale that both successfully anticipated the top of the market *and forsaw this past drop. In reality, we are unaware of anyone who can claim such, and more importantly, from our view such a feat would have likely excluded the possibility of the market to have bottomed earlier, which while it did not materialize, was a very realistic possibility (and we would argue) probability.
Let's talk waves. B-b-b-ut you said Time expired and yet we went lower! You were 'wrong'. Actually, no, the fact that we went lower, and the fashion in which we did so, only further supports the 'overextension' of the trend. Even if your evaluation of being 'right' or 'wrong' is limited what actually materializes in the market, it is waaay too early to proclaim such a ridiculous notion, as
65K, 55k, 45k, and $35 bulls of the past year seemed to find out.Moving along to elliot wave...here is our most recent update to "the Big Long" chart:
So juan might ask, what changed?
Well, essentially this analysis was correct in determining (both through the process of elimination of potential counts over time as well as the negation any other counts which would disagree with our analysis) that we are in a 'standard' (as opposed to 'non -standard') flat correction which began with the 2021 market top and is currently ending in a terminal. Now, given the recent drop, we can say that the count inverse ineffectively changes in it's direct construction to better account for the 'overextension' of the trend.
Early on, the potential for largest degree A to have been complete was best explained using the various potential counts that would fall into the category of 'non standard' corrections. Eventually, the price action evolved such that juan could reasonably justify the possibility of a (directly determined) impulse existing in the position of wave C. The best way to explain this possibility was mainly from the perspectives of complexity and channeling. Now, with the elimination of our triple combination ending in a non-limiting triangle count, we can say that this terminal impulse is the only count left standing. Interestingly enough, the inverse ineffective change of the entire count actually does not change it's complexity *level.
Let's break this new count. Purple numbers 1-5 represent the largest degree of an extended 5th wave impulse. Purple wave 5 is the both the extended and most subdivided wave, which is usually the case. It's sub-waves are composed of red numbers 1-5 which are also an extended 5th wave impulse. Red wave 5's sub-waves are composed of black numbers 1-5, an extended 1st wave terminal impulse.
From a complexity standpoint, largest wave C subdivides so we know that it is automatically level 1 or higher, we can figure out the rest based on the most complex (level-wise) sub-impulse which is wave 5. Similarly, purple wave 5 subdivides meaning a minimum level of 1, purples most
complex wave is red wave 5. Red wave 5 is composed of a terminal impulse, numbers 1-5 in black, thus a base level of zero to start (beaty method). Now we bring it all together. Black wave 3 is the most subdivided impulse (corrective construction) independent of extension. By virtue of the fact that black wave 3 subdivides into a-b-c of a zig zag, we can say that it is a minimum level of 1.
While the direct construction of A of this zig zag admittedly does, itself, subdivide, the fact that wave C is usually equal or more complex than wave A would support the idea that wave A is actually what we call a 'complex mono' (here determined directly). Extended wave 1 of this terminal impulse subdivides into a non-standard correction (double zig zag) with a missing x wave. By the book, a double zig zag compared to single zig zag, both of which subdivide, would be equal in that they are of level 1 complexity. In our view, a double zig zag is actually slightly more complex at what we call a 'meta-complexity' level. In this case, we consider wave 3 to be the 'more' complex of the two at a meta-complexity level due to the existence of a 'complex mono' ...none of this being so important but perhaps interesting to contemplate.
To sum it all up, we add back our complexity level 1 of black wave 3 (really slightly more than 1 (really slightly more than slightly more than 1)) to the base level complexity of a terminal (0) in order to get a total of 1. Then, we add 1 back to our base level 1 of the larger red impulse in order to get a total of 2. Then, we add 2 back to our base level of 1 of the larger purple impulse in order to get a grand total of level 3 for largest wave C.
Finally, we can talk about our purple impulse more generally, moving from left to right. As you can see, as we move forward sub-waves increase in relevant relative price, time, and complexity. Wave 1 is small, short, and simple. Wave 2, a running correction which 'moves the angle of the dangle' is longer. Wave 3 is bigger and more complex than wave 1, and quite nicely equals ~ the accumulated time of waves 1 and 2. Wave 4, an unchannelable zig zag, is longer than all that preceded it (.618 relationship to 3), alternates well with wave 2 in it's increase in price (negative retracement(shallow)-->positive retracement(deep)), and properly precedes the extended wave 5 as the more complex, time-consuming wave of the two. Wave 5 itself is a 5th extension within the larger 5th extension which concludes with an extended 1st terminal. It is by far the largest and most complex impulsive wave of the three.
Why again did the price crash out of nowhere? Because the guy said the things about the things that happened in the first half of the year? Wait, and this revealed to the general public that an exchange has much less bitcoin than they should actually have?
Oh I know I know, it was because the guy (head of one exchange) sold the other exchanges (largely insignificant in the grand scheme of things) token, and this token that no one had ever even heard of before crashed cAuSiNg a cAsCaDe of selling (or at least in theory). Wait, why did he even have this token in the first place? Hmm. That's an interesting question. But I know I know, everyone needs to be really worried about 'contagion' says the guy who, by his own admission, started it? But wait, contagion of what? Everyone suddenly realizing the potential that all of the exchanges *dont have enough bitcoin* ? And this is supposed to be bearish? Ehl oh ehl. I'm not saying there is any truth to it, but regardless, to frame any of this as bearish has no basis in logic.
But heck, what do we know? With that we leave you : )
註釋
With regard to our little monthly scenario cheat sheet (created early in 2022) we can say that our '16' month (wave Z) scenario has effectively changed to 20 months due to the over-extension of the trend via terminal impulse. This makes perfect sense and absolutely jives with our historical count that dates back to the beginning of relevant price action in Bitcoin. We will be going much deeper into the historical count in the near future (hopefully), but with that said the Time Rules are fairly straight forward and within reach of understanding by even beginner or intermediate students. In other words, the number 20 is not pulled out of thin air. Feel free to look for yourself armed with the requisite understanding and you too will find that it is now the most logical candidate for the length of wave Z.The above conclusion is assuming that, while technically still not impossible, wave B of Z ultimately will not complete as 5 months long (on a monthly chart). With that said, it is still up in the air whether or not wave A of Z will conclude as 'clear' or 'unclear' ...as the beatey know an unclear wave is a wave that subsequent to it's completion necessarily involves a 'contemplation' as to where it ends.
In reality, the existence of this lack of clarity does not mean that conclusions can not be made as to which of the two points in time truly represents its' 'end' using a variety of more in depth techniques than basically what amounts to an eye ball test. This applies to Bitcoin: should wave A complete as an 'unclear' wave, it will now be considered to have ended as 13 months long (from the perspective of Time on a Monthly chart). As to the 'why' it would be the later point (out of the two) that is determined as the 'end' of wave A, that is complex and will be touched upon in future lectures, yet hopefully you can still grasp that the lack of clarity of a wave does not preclude it from truly ending in one place. Put differently: the existence of two potential points in time that would qualify as a candidate for a waves' end are what define said wave as 'unclear' as opposed to the ability to succesfully determine which of the two points is truly its' 'end' through various other (more intensive) approaches.
Time is also *essential to understanding why we are in a Terminal Impulse, amongst other things. What the beginner student might perhaps not catch about Time (in the book) is how, like most concepts, it is defined and redefined accordingly, but more importantly, how there are general rules and there are specific rules. Why is there an entire section dedicated *specifically to how Time should apply to Flat corrections?*
The answer is because it is in this type of correction where Time is *by far* the most relevant to your analysis. Additionally, it is because there are nuances not only to how Time applies to the waves of a Flat vs all other types of corrections, but further, to how Time applies distinctly to specific *types of flats.
The relevance of the above as it pertains to Bitcoin is in the negation (not invalidation as they should not even be presupposed) of any and all counts which would necessarily have a flat correction that begins and ends as shown here:
You are never going to find a flat *as determined directly* with waves a, b, and c all having an equal amount of time. While this is a general time rule i.e. you can not have 3 adjacent waves of the same degree all equal in time, *more importantly* it is also in part what informs both the specific fashion in which Time applies to Flat corrections as well as the distinct applications to each type of flat. Being able to distinguish when you are in a flat correction and what type of flat might be occurring is arguably the single most important concept needed to excel in your analysis. And you can not do so without acknowledging that Time is VITAL.
Conversely, there is no section (in the book) dedicated to how Time applies to a terminal impulse, or even more generally, to an impulse. There is of course subtle discussion throughout of Time as it applies all wave types, Impulses included, and perhaps even terminal impulses, yet it is a relatively much less relevant factor as compared to Flats.
Finally, it is literally the nature of Terminal Impulses to break all the other more stringently applied rules of elliot wave, whether in terms of their effect on the larger degrees of a count or in terms of their direct construction. Thus why there is hardly any significance to the occurrence of 3 adjacent waves within a terminal of equal time. And, as it should happen, everything else about the existence of this terminal fits perfectly and brings the bigger picture together.
TLDR: All signifcant bearish counts rely upon a Flat correction which is easily negated. It would not have worked indirectly (both positionally within one larger degree *and within all of history) and it does not work directly. Conversely, there is now for all intensive purposes only one count remaining of which a terminal impulse serves as a necessary component. The lack of cleanliness which (in addition to Time) negates all supposed counts using a flat correction is also a classic characteristic found in terminal impulses which I call 'terminally messiness'. While the *only essential charcteristic needed for the existence of a terminal *directly is wave overlap, in this case there are a bunch of other charecteristics such as how it channels pristinely as an extended 1st, the construction and intricacy of it's sub-waves, etc.
註釋
"using a flat correction is also a classic characteristic found in terminal impulses which I call 'terminally messiness'. "-using a flat correction *and is also a classic characteristic found in terminal impulses which I call '*terminal messiness'.
註釋
Weekly RSI Bullish Divergence now in play.
Buckle up Buttercup
註釋
SO, as promised, I will go a bit deeper into why I, the BFTBITW (by far the best in the world), haveremained steadfast in my emphatic bullish view regarding the market at these ridiculously low prices,
but as always any chance of true understanding will require the requisite familiarity with the material
at hand.
From an elliot wave perspective, we are in a running triple three ~10 year long wave 2 which will precede
an epic wave 3 that will take us well into millions of dollars within the next 10 years and likely within
the next 5 years. As we have spoken about at length in past lectures over many hours, the 2020/2021 rally
from ~10xxx to over ~60xxx represented what could have been considered, at the time, a smaller impulsive
wave 1 (implying biggest wave 2 was already complete (RDT)), or a second 'big' X wave--meaning the state of flux
in the market would instead be resolved in the manifestation of a running triple three--which we can all now
collectively acknowledge in hindsight (and in our case here at LARP in foresight (see: "Still Bearish Dre"
linked chart)) has occurred. Running triple-three's can only occur in the position of wave 2 before an extremely
powerful extended wave 3. It has the single most powerful bullish implications out of any correction you will
find within Glen Neely's book, which again is the *only book worth dedicating your time towards reading as
far as elliot wave goes.
That is the count. If you don't believe me, or understand it, I simply don't have time. Nor do I care to
convince you. Demonstrate your own count or gtfo.
The most relevant question at hand, which only the decentralized proof of work of the market will ultimately
resolve, is whether or not we have just completed wave Z of 2, or wave A of Z of 2. In either case, we can
say that the market has bottomed. Let's discuss why we have been and remain so wildly bullish on the market
at these prices, how it is informed by the Beaty method which more heavily incorporates predictive tactical
analysis and heuristics that exist external to the fairly narrow explanatory focus of elliot wave theory,
and lastly what the implications and nuances of the previous question are.
In order to comprehend the dynamic at play, juan must first understand that while the monthly and weekly
charts are both in the same overall count, there is a timing difference as to where our second 'big' wave X
ends. On the weekly (and the 3d as shown on The Last Dance published chart) wave X ends earlier and is
followed by a flat correction of which wave C ends with a smaller degree Terminal impulsive wave.
On the monthly chart, our second 'big' wave X ends later (which also means the start of wave Z
begins later). As much as the mind wishes to pretend this timing difference does not exist, it
does nonetheless exist, and with expert level skill the acknowledgement of this difference can actually
be used to our advantage. This time-frame 'effectivity' (which we pointed out ages ago) can exist indefinitely,
or the decentralized proof of work of the market can decide that it will resolve this difference such
that one time frame will necessarily 'impose it's will' so to speak on the other. Grasping this
distinction will be crucial to your success.
Let's attempt to make all of these complex, moving parts, a bit simpler with a quick illustration
of it all using a monthly chart. I will navigate through it all via the subsequent text:
The newly established, revised yet again as we expected, ascending black 0-2 line is going to
be the key to this all in that the market will ultimately decide whether or not this is the
*final 0-2 line or if we have yet another revision to come (another moving of the angle of the
dangle). Put differently: if wave Z (and biggest wave 2) are already complete then this line
will be set in stone amidst our journey to millions of dollars per bitcoin. If this line is indeed 'held' it
would represent the scenario shown in feinted X and 'Z?' which in our view is less likely, but possible.
Alternatively, as we have it shown here, wave Z is still in progress which means that after our rally we should still
have at least one more dance with the devil and at least give her a little kiss before we find out who we really are.
Regardless, the weekly (and 3d) will maintain the integrity of it's flat correction ending in a terminal.
The nature of terminal impulses is in part what informs our assertion that the bottom is in. The more
bullish scenario would be that wave Z is complete, and the coming move up will be a smaller degree wave
1 that will at a bare minimum 'approach' the ATH if not break it, and perhaps more importantly, fail
to subsequently 'move the angle of the dangle'. In other words, the time frame 'effectivity' would be
removed, and wave X would end at the same point in time on both time frames.
Part of why wave X ends later on the monthly is in how such was directly determined in the first place:
to count monthly wave X's end (as it currently is on the weekly) would necessarily require counting
the same a-b-c affair as a flat which contains an 'unclean oh-to-A line', a major no no. Thus why we lean towards
taking what the data is telling us, yet are not so rigid in our analysis as to say the (relatively more bullish)
implications of this particular count are not a realistic possibility.
An unclean 'oh-to-A' of a flat correction concluded indirectly (in retrospect) is 'acceptable' in certain contexts with a huge
disclaimer that it would have to be the best way to explain what already happened *despite* the existence of this
characteristic. The same goes for any other 'rule' you might contemplate in your analysis, there is a complex array of factors
which in sum help evaluate which count is the *best (has the least wrong with it). Additionally, the market is always
king and it's proof of work always 'rule all rules'.
This is a very different line of thought as compared to *anticipating a supposed wave C of a common flat *will be the
end of a correction* before a rally to new highs (when this uncleanliness is present). Drink that in. It is important
and a big part of how the dinasours became extinct.
註釋
/2Lets dig into the chart itself further. You will note that in the more likely count we have **two counter
-directional moves of equal time** in the amount of 13 months each. I'm not sure if I have mentioned this (/sarcasm),
but this is an extremely powerful phenomenan in terms of predicting what comes next. It is a concept that
*largely exists outside of any specific count, but with the caveat that there must be at least one potential
count at play that would incorporate it's presence into the bigger picture, which is the case 99% of the time
as it is here. Understanding how this principle applies to markets can be one of the single greatest aids from
a predictive standpoint. When this relationship between counter-directional waves is present, it serves to alert
the analyst of a potential of stored energy that exists which juan can use to speculate with a high degree of
accuracy that a wave has 'ended' *in advance*. Anyway, this is yet another factor contributing as to why we count
the monthly as we do, and why we believe this timing difference between the weekly and the monthly timeframes will
remain indefinitely.
Either the weekly a-b-c affair will prove to be a smaller degree A of Z as we have suggested or the time frame effectivity
will be eliminated and wave Z (and biggest 2) are already complete.
Now, let's move on to TIME, the most important factor of them all. In *both of these two scenarios, we will have a ~20
month long wave Z! Like all other corrections excluding flats, the book does not go *in depth* as to how Time specifically
applies to non-standard corrections, yet the more general Time rules still apply and are vital to your understanding of
what is happening in the market.
Why should wave Z = 20 months (in either scenario)? Let's dig in:
Wave W = 20 months, Wave Y = 33 months, this is a .618 relationship. Coincidence? I think not : ) The .382 and .618
relationships tend to show up everywhere, especially with regard to time. The golden ratio blah blah blah and all
that jazz. You will see them used in wider technical analysis albeit in much more oversimplistic and amateurishly
applied manners. All other forms of TA are crude gross oversimplifications of the most effective and sophisticated
form of TA (elliot wave analysis). But I digress, back to Time.
In short, you would expect wave Z to either fulfill an accumulative fibinocci relationship between the three standard
corrections which comprise the running triple three, or to equal one of the two. At this point in time, we can now rule
out that wave Z (in totality) will equal 13 months, thus all things being equal wave Z should be either ~20 or ~33 months
long, yet in this instance the latter would not sufficiently 'jive' with the bigger picture.
While the time rules generally apply to adjacent waves, in the above they are applied to waves of the same *degree. So long
as there is not a time-specific rule or other exception of contextual significance that would negate them this approach
is easily the best fit. Interestingly enough, the relevance of Time with respect to *adjaceny is actually the primary
supporting factor with regard to time in this count! The relevant adjacent waves are Y, X, and Z. Check it out:
Wave Y = 33 months, Subsequent Wave X = 13 months, thus if Wave Z = 20 months it fulfills a perfect accumulative fibinocci
relationship amongst the three (X + Z = Y).
With that, we leave you.
We look forward to the suddenly approaching annual celebration of "Proof of Keys Day" as the so called 'contagon' of awareness
that certain third-parties have much less Bitcoin than they should continues to spread : )
Got Bitcoin?
-tootles
註釋
Typical end of a trend psychology at play, this recent drop over the last few days was CLASSIC bear trap! Beautiful. The bears still think they are in charge and get overzealous at the worst time, setting the stage for the RIP.Let's take a stroll down memory lane. In this instance, not for the purposes of elliot wave, but from a general market perspective of how things look and feel when the market is ending a trend.
January 22 2019 published snapshot chart:
-When we break up and rally hard for a new high, the 'lol bulls getting excited' phase will be complete. It has been said by the 'experts' that we are not going to 30k "any time soon" thus we can say that the "Haha dead cat bounce is over phase will begin around when we start to break up and beyond the 2x,xxx's and enter the 3x,xxx's range. All of the bears (who are currently extatic about how great they are for catching this 'massive' 5k move down (lol)) will then momentarily reemerge only to quickly fade away again and delete their charts and/or social media accounts as price slices through this level with zero resistance.
Here is a daily chart snapshot I just created from that same 2019 time period:
Here is a current daily chart snapshot:
-Both daily charts are inverse head and shoulder patterns (each messy in their own right).
Back then no one was even looking for the pattern to complete let alone actively looking for some type of reversal chart pattern as the mood of the market was totally depressed, the air completely sucked out of the room, all of the day traders and twitter experts gone with the wind. Volume dried up. No one expected the price to break up for a change because 'down' was all everyone knew and had ingrained in their memory.
There was no significant news that arised, only that the price had overextended too low for too long allowing for the end of the prevalance of the *emotion 'fear' in the uninitiated to be overtaken by the *motivation 'greed' by the critically thinking smart money,as it always does. It should be noted that of course, eventually a narrative was conjured up much later on to explain the move up *post facto*, in this case it was Libra (I think? (lol Libra)), which allowed for yet another failed attempt at distracting the masses from the new reality whereby the old money (formerly) 'elite' (as they would perceive themselves) have lost control over money, the single greatest key to their centralized control. But I digress : )
There is a similar inverse head and shoulders pattern developing on the Litecoin daily chart and most other alts against USD.
Here is the published idea from a month later in 2019.
-This is one of the few times in history that a down trend sucessfully attained oversold levels on the Bitcoin weekly RSI, a signal that has been present at pretty much every major market bottom. Similarly, the current price action is coming out of the most oversold conditions in the history of Bitcoin, yet in this case we have a decisively lower low in price (on a closing basis) and a higher low in RSI creating a bullish divergence, which I spoke about in an earlier update.
相關出版品
免責聲明
這些資訊和出版物並不意味著也不構成TradingView提供或認可的金融、投資、交易或其他類型的意見或建議。請在使用條款閱讀更多資訊。