Predictive/Forecasting model remains . Market for Bitcoin/Bitfinex has been weighed down, although some might perceive this as being a mere correction, bound into a sideways pattern - While this remains true as a matter of observation, intrinsic directional biases have favored bears for the time being - In fact, it has pushed price towards a "Worst Case Scenario" posted a few weeks back - Link: .
Drawn in the charts are entrenchments in bears and bulls, namely:
1 - UPPER ENTRENCHMENT waiting above the 639.80 mark
2 - LOWER ENTRENCHMENT waiting below the 429.02 mark.
These are NOT targets. They represent likely levels of directional commitment, whereby a BACA would likely commit price in a ipsi-directional move.
Now, returning to that "might be a mere oscillation of price within a sideways move", one has to consider that more rope has been pulled in favor of bears over bulls. Hence, the probability of win here would belong to bears.
In addition, the Predictive/Forecasting Model has confirmed a market reversal signal, and defined the following targets:
1 - TG-1 = 416.27 - 17 SEP 2014
2 - TG-2 = 399.16 - 17 SEP 2014
- TG-Lo = 276.87 - 17 SEP 2014
As you may recall, Quant-Targets are numerical targets defining FUTURE R/S levels, as price is expected to stop/go and post minor levels (in the order of 0.114, 0.214, 0.382, and 0.618 ... Rarely up to 0.618 - where the first TWO values are complementary values to 0.886 and 0.786).
In contrast, Qualt-Targets are descriptive (i.e.: "Hi" or "Lo") targets, that have a LOW probability of getting hit, but IF and once reached, will carry a HIGH probability of defining a reversal (not just retracement) in price action, thus sending price likely above the mere 0.618, and instead to 1.131 and above relative to the preceding price swing which carved its extreme value.
Market is under bear's butt. Bulls are being dragged for winter supply into the ursine cave, and only a significant event other than the predictive/forecast aforementioned could save their soul. Question here is: Who'd be buying.
Well played, institutional traders, for shaking the weak hands out of this market. But then again, if you recall my earliest charts in BTCUSD/MtGox, we talked extensively about Momental Lines, and the possibility of revising the lower levels BEFORE a significant push back to the upside - Here is a link to an such an older chart - See Link to BTC/BTCe - Weekly: .
Somehow, I have lost the MtGox charts, but regardless of the exchange's fate, it appears that it did provide a reasonable floor from which one would be able to assess the current situation ... Had it not tanked.
Predictive Analysis & Forecasting
Denver, Colorado - USA
PS: Thank you for your kind support, friendly referrals, warm "thumb-ups" and humbling re-post in other website. I very much appreciate the recognition. I hope it is returned to you in profits, be it in self-edification, and perhaps a bit of coins too - David
Alias: 4xForecaster (Twitter, LinkedIn, StockTwits)
Signal Service or Private Course - Contact: MarketPredictiveAnalysis@gmail.com
All updates on https://twitter.com/4xForecaster
I have spend countless hours on timing, and I gave that up. Time-based Fibos, Gann grids, and what not are simply not speaking to me in the way that it might to some other head-banging market researcher.
I took my helmet off and decided to come down to reality: Getting the direction, strength and being able to define future R/S levels and call market reversals is quite enough. The rest belongs to some other crazier person.
I just finished writing an explanation of the TG-Lo in chart. Feel free to review and see whether it addresses your question - The most recent comment should be at the thread's end:
Let me know if I need to clarify anything else, or whether it does not answer your query completely.
A TG-Lo is a nominal target (in contrast to the numerical TG-1, TG-2, TG-3, ... TG-n targets), which indicates a unlikely attainment by price, but if and once price reaches it, TG-Lo will act as a high-probability reversal level.
In the case of this TG-Lo, the same rule applies, and therefore, there is no further bearish consideration given to the chart.
If this helps, here is a similar question which another trader asked about 1 hour ago - Cut/pasted from the link I referred you too earlier:
I'm curious how your model being bearish squares with an identified TG-Lo reached. Being bearish wouldn't the expectation be to keep dropping even farther than we have? But that conflicts with the idea of a strong reversal at TG-Lo. Is the idea that the reversal may only be a small retracement with further targets to be defined only after dropping past the previous TG-Lo?
The TG-Lo carries refers to a significant LOW reversal potential level (as opposed to a TG-Hi for HIGH potential reversal levels), which also carries a low probability of getting hit at the time of the signal release. However, if and once it is reached, it then carries a HIGH probability of a reversal (a reversal is defined as "more than a mere 0.382 to 0.618", and thus implies a greater than 0.618 retracement at a minimal, or a complete reversal to carve to structural levels).
When a TG-Lo is hit, the persistence of the model's bearish bias which anticipated price action towards that TG-Lo will remain in effect, simply because the pool of bears and bulls remains "under negotiation", which is chart form would be tantamount to a consolidation.
Geometrically speaking, there are several forms of consolidation, the most common would be a higher low achievement relative to the lowest low. In such case, I would seek a retracement in the 0.618 to 0.786 range.
From a pattern standpoint, I would seek any bullish pattern, such as a Gartley with reversal reaching the 0.786 value, although I would keep an eye out for a Cypher at 0.786 or even a Bat at 0.886, depending on their respective Point-B residence.
From an Elliott Wave standpoint, I would look for a Wave-5 truncation. This would corroborate well with a Bat.
Other odd pattern that could trump the recent TG-Lo value could be the Butterfly, the Shark or the Crab. All of these have a tendency to carve out a false directional low at 1.414/1.618, 1.131, or 1.618, respectively - Worth keeping an eye out, but most importantly, worth keeping these outer-reaching Fib extensions in mind as you consider a stop-loss point definition.
OVERALL, I would wait for the market to consume itself. The persistence of the model is due to internal reads, as the continues to perceive unresolved conflicts, so to speak. Also, as mentioned before, the model could well be applied to smaller timeframe in order to decipher early signal or market reversal, however, these tend to be too sensitive (as in risking too many false signals) and lack the specificity (getting the one signal that "means what it means"). So, the H4 remains the best applicable field for which it was really calibrated. As importantly, the H4 model offers an good timeframe overlapping the "smaller purse" retailers wading their cold toes in the shallow pools og M5, M15 and H1 waters, and the institutional sharks marauding in the exotic pools of H4 and daily depths.
I hope this developed answer in the cut/paste comment responded to your question.
TG-Lo has a low probability of being hit and a high probability of reversal (to the upside). Reversal in the case of TG-lo means >0.618 retracement. So your model anticipates a strong bounce but indication of a trend is still unclear and further analysis needs to take place if and once it retraces >0.618.
Once a TG-Lo is hit, the rule is that price should rally regardless of the model's bias. If it fails to do so, it means that a larger timeframe is in control and interfered with the model.
In mechanical terms, the model is the engine that drive price to the nominal target, while the nominal target is a brick wall with a big poofy pillow pushing car out and away at a distance that should exceed 0.618 of the recent swing.
In contrast, numerical targets cause smaller bounces, sending the vehicle back just 0.382 to 0.618 if the recent traveled swing.
So, even if the engine remains warn in one direction, once a nominal target (TG-Hi or TG-Lo) has been reached, the reversal is expected following a consolidation.
You will notice that sometimes, a consolidation will engulf the TG-Lo/Hi almost symmetrically, by developing the first legs of a consolidation on either side of it, as if straddling it. This is not a failure, and the range of straddling will augment with the larger timeframe.
This may be more TMI but added explanation might help here, since we are now dealing with a likely consolidation moment, and I would expect price to straddle this TG-Lo with a geometry that tends to be symmetrical in nature at first.
If one is familiar with Elliott Wave Principle, then expect this symmetry to remain quite complex based on the Rule Of Alternations, where a developing 4th wave might protract if a preceding 2nd wave was ever short.
There are a lot of things occurring at different levels, and I decided to define the nominal and numerical targets as a way to break through all the occult geometries that may have a hand in fashioning the definition of these levels.