GME reached the 200 MA on the 8h + extended hours, it hit the S3 weekly, the diagonal support, a VP HVN and it managed to get into an area that was previously resistance (currently turned into support). So to me this either is the bottom, or GME is in trouble. This is a massive combo and the structure of GME in the long term is still bullish. In my opinion the double top at 340 has a change to break and is what has me quite bullish.
Of course there are several issues in the global economy, meme stocks haven't been doing well and so on... but this doesn't mean that we can't see another big rally. That requires that things don't crash right now and that we stay in a bullish environment for stocks... which over the last few weeks/months has been turning bearish and mostly favoring large caps. Going long here isn't a bad choice imho with stops below 160, otherwise wait for the market to close above 220 to start looking for longs.
Likely only a third of a third wave down ended at yesterday's lows, and wave A of an A-B-C three wave correction ended at yesterday's high, wave B ended at this morning's low. Therefore it is currently in C up that may be already over, if C=A or equality (most common) then that projects the upper limit to 194.89.The second most common is C= 1.618 x A @ 204.40, the rebound high of 7/6 is 204.77. Today's high is 194.22, that suffices for a C=A correction since these numbers are ballpark, the move already shows only 3 waves or countertrend. When done, wave 5 of 3 down will ensue to new lows probably in the 168 area where wave 3 will be 1.618 x 1, but could go much lower since 3rd waves can be in multiples of 1.618 i.e. 2x, 2.618-5.618, but the most common is 1.618. Thereafter, a larger 4th wave will ensue from whatever low, then wave 5 down with another 5 subwaves to much lower prices. This is a thrust down from a bearish contracting triangle that is part of a complex correction after a big ZigZag down, wave E of the triangle is 233.66. The 6/8 high 344.66 is a Double Failure Swing High under the 3/10 high of 348.50, and both under the all-time high 483, there is nothing bullish here other than excessive bullish sentiment greater than the 483 high projecting price from $500-2K in echo chambers as your losses accrue. The only salvation is that eventually from much lower prices when 5 waves down are complete is that a triangle is a terminal move, and likely will return at some point to the base in the area of 241.13 (A)-233.66 (E). Above that is the formidable ZigZag down from 344.66 to 211, resistance above the triangle is wave B of the ZigZag @ 248.75. The ZigZag down violated wave 1 up to 344.66 @ 218.93, an Elliott Wave rule violation, another bearish indication
ogdabber
⋅
I have multiple views that show it has already broken down and will likely slide on lack of volume—BUT, it could still reverse on volume surge... also have similar bullish looks, but these are certainly risky plays without volume. Your volume profile is more pronounced though, and this makes me more bullish strangely.
bizmark
⋅
also sitting on this trendline on log chart
BitcoinMacro
⋅
@bizmark, I am not gonna lie... this trendline doesn't make much sense to me. There is an infinite amount of trendlines, connecting random lows doesn't mean much to me. On the log chart it has clearly broken down, no denying that, but when looking at a certain timeframe and certain range the log chart isn't necessary.
bizmark
⋅
@BitcoinMacro, actually this trendline makes perfect sense, it's based on strict rules and these lows are not random at all. I can't say that about 90% trendlines I saw from others. This trendline has been breached but it doesn't mean the uprend has been broken yet. I think the price could get back above it again, and the uptrend will continue.
BitcoinMacro
⋅
@bizmark, For a trendline to be valid it needs 3 points. With 2 point you are speculating the trendline will form (and that's fine usually when those points are very important highs or lows, usually after forming strong local bottoms or tops). That goes for any line, 2 dots create something, but 3 establish it. Well this trendline is not established. So this doesn't fulfill any of the basic criteria in my books. Maybe you have a special way of visualizing things, but to me this really isn't technically sound.
bizmark
⋅
@BitcoinMacro, you don't need the trendline to be validated by 3rd point, if you based it on 2 reasonable lows picked systematically (repeatable process). You just draw the TL and you take it into account. If you are ignoring trendlines based on "just" 2 lows, you dont' really see the whole picture. BTW what about the saying that the more touches of the trendline the higher the probability it will break? Aren't 3 touches more than 2?