The decade long Running Double Three turned Running Triple Three (largest degree) Wave 2 is now complete. What many do not understand is that the last two major Bull rallys were actually corrective waves to the upside and tiny on a relative basis (*measured internally using % increase as should be the norm with all cryptocurrencies). Look for Wave 3 to last at least a decade long (it should be equal or longer to Wave 2) and put in a cycle high of around 5-10 Million dollars.
Running corrections (Flat, Double Three, or Triple Three) have the most powerful implications of what is to follow, they are the most bullish patterns in all of Elliot wave (given they complete to the downside). We just concluded a decade long running correction. Drink that in.
Related Bitcoin Charts:
Short term:
Recent Classics:
Gluck. -The greatest ever
*Feel free to watch the entire video series I did which explains the prior statement, these young, volatile assets exhibit purely emotionally-based hype cycles of explosive growth. As long as you avoid comparing up moves with down moves (which are limited to 100%) you will not run into any problems.
Note: Minor correction to the following chart snapshot: -There is a small red arrow (directionally pointing to the right) that begins in the bottom right corner of the "Begins Early" (purple text, red border) rectangle, and ends touching the first of two (black text, red border) rectangles. This arrow should actually be pointing to the second of these two rectangles. An earlier version of the chart had the sequence of these two rectangles reversed (which would have been correct). So, feel free to simply disregard the arrow as it is obviously the 33 month scenario (21-6-6) that Begins early and Ends Late.
ltc-joe
⋅
Been having difficulties publishing charts, here is a snapshot link in case the frame/scaling got messed up which it appears it did:
ltc-joe
⋅
Update 8/24/23:
-3d chart. An update to the chart below showing the how the recent Market-based Proof of Work (Terminal impulse Wave 5 of larger Wave C was fully retraced within 50% of the time it took to form) strongly suggests there will not be another leg down: The Terminal Impulse Low should not be approached for at least twice the amoubt of time the Terminal took to form (if ever).
-The classic chart which shows the Elliot Wave count above in even greater detail.
-The published chart I am replying too custom tailored to illustrate why Wave Z is in ('Zeds Ded') with detailed must-read annotations.
-snapshot of published chart
(TLDR) It is not hard to understand the similarity between waves A, B, and C of a Running flat or Irregular Failure (Flats with strong power implications of what is to follow) and any set of any three consecutive waves found within a Running Triple Three (except X-Y-X). The power implications of strength to follow (whether in the form of a 'big' X wave or a relatively stronger impulse (than the preceding impulse)) are largely the same. Compositionally, the *directional sequences (and accompanying retracement limitations) attributed to the two Wave Patterns in question are basically the same (structure of sub-waves aside) in that Waves A/W each begin by retracing the prior leg up, only to be fully retaced and more, ultimately concluding with another similar or equal, related in Price and/or Time, Wave C/Y or C/Z (in the case of a Running Triple-three).
In any Flat, there is always a potential for the 3 consecutive waves (A-B-C) to form an Accumulated Time Relationship (and additionally, except for in Elongated Flats, a Fibonacci relationship between the three adjacent waves). Interestingly enough, on the Bitcoin Historical Monthly chart (see: snapshot) Wave W = Wave Z in Time, just exactly how it would occur in Waves A and C of a Running Flat (equality in Time between the first and last wave in the series).
Further, there is a .618 Time-based relationship between Waves W and Z (the two 20 month waves) and Wave Y, a similar phenomenan frequently found in Waves A and B of any Flat.
Lastly, there is an Accumulated Time Fibonacci relationship amongst the three final adjacent waves of the pattern (Y-X-Z). Considering the similarity between the Running Double (or Triple)-Three Pattern and it's powerful counterparts The Running Flat and The Irregular Failure Patterns, these discoveries should be no surprise.
Long version to come, stay tuned.
ltc-joe
⋅
@ltc-joe Update 8/24/23: (w/ out the charts and TLDR)
1/ As always, I will do my best to briefly summarize recent analysis and help simplify things as much as possible for the aspiring student, two concepts lost on the vast majority of other prospective analysts you might follow.
Here is why I still maintain that Wave Z of largest degree Wave 2 (a Running Triple-Three, decade-long, Non-Standard Correction) was completed around 8-9 months ago. After succesfully predicting the drop from over 60k to below 20k, my initial view was that Bitcoin had just completed a Flat correction that would likely only serve as a smaller degree Wave A of Wave Z, as opposed to the entire Wave Z correction. As always, I will continue to stress the importance in understanding the difference between the two main types of analysis involved in my work which I have dubbed 'explanatory analysis' vs 'predictive analysis.' As for the predictive side of things I have been looking for a rally to ~ the 40k-50k $ range for around a year now, without a strongly held stance as to exactly how this rally would play out.
ltc-joe
⋅
@ltc-joe 2/While the above outlook is informed by Elliot Wave Principles, it does not depend upon any one, individual count. I point this out because oddly there is a common misunderstanding that counts are everything, an edge can only be gained in having the sole 'correct' count, and that such a thing (given it even exists) can always be found (no matter what data you are looking at, on what time frame, and how extensive or relevant it is). Thus, by embracing these flawed ideas, the real value of counting waves is thrown by the wasteside in the hopes of discovering the perfect count which will somehow relieve one of the hard work required to understand market behavior and cycles. It is actually a bit comical: if one were to indeed find this immaculate count, just exactly what is its' significance if juan can not even grasp the implications of said count! This side of the coin is called the 'Win,' it represents but 1/2 of the dynamic known as 'Win-Won.' To strike the proper balance, it is equally necessary to understand the 'Won' which revolves around the two types of analysis I described earlier. In order to properly understand the Present and predict the Future, we must first understand the Past. Finally, we can say that to master the 'Win-Won' dynamic and achieve true balance is what is often referred to as the 'Won-Wai' (pronounced "Juan" "Way").
ltc-joe
⋅
@ltc-joe 3/The 'Won' side of the coin imploys a highly potent, relentless approach towards explanatory analysis such that the ever-unfolding resolution of price action can evolve and perfect predictive analysis. I briefly touched on each of these earlier, let's chew on it all a bit more. Dating back to the completion of a Flat correction last summer (well covered in many charts and videos), the primary question I have been asking the markets to decide is: Of what degree is this Flat correction? According to some old-school orthodoxy, obtaining this level of information is fairly black and white, and easily quantifyable using various prickly metrics. Taken to its' logical extreme, it is akin to believing a computer program can be written to succesfully plot the entire future price action of a market. This type of thinking is based in the idea of perfectly-efficient markets and discounts the the reality that markets are complex, dynamic, and filled with 'animal spirits.'
ltc-joe
⋅
@ltc-joe 4/The Beatey Method (which builds upon the Neely Method) takes the true nature of markets into account by utilizing a concept I have dubbed 'Market-based Proof of Work' in order to continually update Elliot Wave Counts. Degree is necessarily a by-product of any count, and a vital part of counting waves. Time, Price, and Complexity Levels each have a role to play in the process with Time weighted the heaviest.
Let's talk Bitcoin. Again, you might recall, initially my count leaned towards the summer of 2022 bottom having represented the completion of Wave A of Z. The implications of such being the market was due for a 'quick' reactionary Wave B 'bounce' before subsequently experiencing yet another leg down for Wave C of Z. To be clear, I no longer have this view. As I will continue to outline in the rest of this update, it is now apparrent that Wave Z is in, hence the phrase 'Zeds ded.' Last week's 'drop' in prices (guzuntite) does not change that. The implication being that we are at the beginning of the beginning of what will be Bitcoin's largest. Run. Ever.
ltc-joe
⋅
@ltc-joe 5/Let's dig into why the now 'confirmed' (Market-based Proof of Work sense (Terminal 5th of Larger C was post-constructively validated ensuring the future integrity of both the impulsive structure of Wave C as well as the compaction of the larger correction into a Flat (which necessarily 'begins early'))) 20 month Flat correction marks the end of an epic, decade long, Wave 2. As a prerequisite, you will need the ability to use your brain. Afterall, you don't become the greatest ever by giving short answers.
There are a myriad of reasons supporting my stance all of which are *rooted in the historical chart of bitcoin. These day to day moves are much, much less relevant. I will give you a few major reasons that help inform my stance.
ltc-joe
⋅
@ltc-joe 6/Let's zoom out, and please do keep in mind that the published chart I am currently replying to is best shown in the following snapshot:
As I have mentioned in the past, including the perspective of Time is usually the single most important aspect of effectively counting waves, this holds ever-more true as the period of time you are analyzing increases. It does not take huge sums of money to temporarily influence the price of a given 'instrument' (anything you can invest in with a market price) on a given day. When such is done with the goal of artificially 'manipulating' the spot price it's often referred to as 'painting the tape.' Despite these intrusions on 'natural' trading, eventually the forces of supply and demand materialize thus bringing about 'true' price discovery. I do not mention this for the purpose of casting out some moral or ethical judgement, but rather to guide us closer to the truth of how markets work. Additionally and admittedly (alliteration aside), many accompanying inter-related concepts emenate from the computerization of markets, and are filled with grey areas and blurred lines, which unfortunately require the use of loaded terms that fail to breach below the surface. In modern times, 'Market Making,' 'Arbitrage,' 'High Frequency Trading,' and 'Algos' are influencing markets at all times, arguably contributing to the 'manipulation' of supply and demand in the name of 'providing liquidity,' yet as history has shown inevitably something always breaks unleashing free market potential that has been swept underneath the rug.
ltc-joe
⋅
@ltc-joe 7/It is no secret that Elliot Wave Analysis (as well as less intensive forms of Technical Analysis) utilize Fibonacci 'numbers' (derived from famous ratios and sequences) as the basis for explaining and predicting how waves 'relate' to each other. While Elliot Wave Analysis is highly sophisticated, the mathematical aspect of it all is actually fairly simple. In short, whether dealing in Price, Time, or both, the vast majority of calculations will usually involve some variation of basically two numbers: .382 and .618. For instance, A x 0.618 = B, or A x 1.382 = B, or A, B, and C exhibit an Accumulative, Fibonacci relationship such that the ratio of the three 'terms' is C = A + B whereby A = 0.618C, B = 0.382C. In the context of Elliot Wave, each term would represent the measurement of a given wave's change in either Price or Time. That is the gist of it. Capeesh?