In my previous post linked below, I had indicated that the first major bounce would probably come from 278 which is exactly what happened.
Now let's follow up.
The June-October Decline ( intermediate A) seems like an impulsive one wave affair but I do not subscribe to the 'WXY flat correction since 2013 is complete' view because X is too shallow. X Should at least be 61.8% of W for it to be considered part of a flat.
The move up from 278 ( intermediate B) clearly lacks the momentum of a trend change and is obviously correcting wave A.
Two high probability harmonic targets for intermediate B are 478 and 510. After 510, 600 comes into play but I assign a very low probability to us reaching there.
The BTC market moves fast.
I believe, the last leg Y of the WXY correction which is taking place in the form of a zig-zag (ABC) should finalize without breaking the trendline which means it has to end before June 2015.
Depending on the time dimension, it will be somewhere between 200 and 279, whereafter we will correct the whole WXY correction.
I still believe that the final leg of the correction will take us to 70s by 2016/2018.
Would you address what the bigger picture wave count is? Nice work on this chart. What is your view? In black and white: IS this a buy here and what is your target. Or are you waiting to sell it at the top of this rally? What are your trade levels? Thanks in advance.
Bosphorus_Capital
⋅
Thanks for the kind remarks,
We pulled back towards the downtrend line and bounced off it. I think the lows of the bounce (369) can be used to initiate longs against. I'm holding longs from 278 and will hold on to them until I see some signs of topping which I don't expect until 440/478/510. If I see signs of topping in this area I will close longs and initiate shorts.
You can check out my long term count and view here:
Thanks for your replies with the longer-term time frame perspective. Do you mind if I point out a couple of things about the wave count?
Bosphorus_Capital
⋅
Please, by all means... :)
timwest
⋅
Post-pattern reaction is key to confirming patterns: The 2-4 trendline needs to break quickly or in less time than wave 5 took to form. Also, the 2-4 trendline can't be violated by wave 3. Also, the waves of minor degree are smaller in time, price and complexity. By applying these rules, it can change the count a bit. The labels could be shifted around a bit to handle some of these issues. Have you seen any of these rules before? I studied RN Elliott first, then followed Prechter for many years until I met Glenn Neely of Mastering Elliott Wave. He has the most comprehensive rules to keep wave counts more consistent. All the best, Tim
Bosphorus_Capital
⋅
I've been reading Glenn Neely too but I find him a bit weird. He doesn't have 'leading diagonals' for example. His, 'extended wave3 is at least 1.618*wave 1' guideline doesn't work all the time in practice.
I know that this is a major guideline but I find a lot of wave3s especially in forex that break the 2/4 trendline; assuming those waves to be corrective usually is a big bite. You're right in pointing out that the ii/iv trendline breaks very slowly. I'd love to see an alternate long term count that satisfies all the guidelines that you have mentioned. The two alternatives I can think of are a series of nesting 1-2s for which the present correction seems too long and intricate and two ABC/ABCs. I don't like explosive corrections that move like 10000% so the correction count is I think out of the ballpark. Thanks again for the feedback, it's very valuable. Best,
timwest
⋅
Well, I spent years on EW with Glenn and following the guidelines really helps. Glenn is the first to say that impulsive action is far more rare than people label. I've found great benefit in being able to see when a count isn't logical or accurate and decide not to follow it. Avoid a losing trade is a winning trade. I hear your frustration that it is hard to follow. Leading diagonals is new to me also. I like my "time at mode". So much simpler. Nothing complex. And often comes to the same conclusion. 90% of the time.
Bosphorus_Capital
⋅
True that, most waves are corrections. Is there a place where you go through the 'time at mode' in detail? I'd love to find out more about it.
Hassler3
⋅
why have you discounted the $33 peak in 2011 or does that not fit your fib wave count?