Two things can happen:
- If price doesn't gain momentum and break above 48 within the next 3 hours, we could see it drop back to support at 46 give or take. This would warrant a buy as well, risking a new daily low perhaps.
- On the other hand, if price moves above 48 soon, and stays there on close, then we can probably get a breakout trade, a 'Time at mode' signal in the , taking off after the OPEC meeting is out of the way (this is probable, but I'd rather buy more on dips).
If you're flat, wait for a dip to enter against 46 give or take, or, wait for the breakout trade signal...or short $USDCAD at market with a half position, and stops above at least 1.35125 (or higher) and be willing to add after today's close, if we get a retracement over 1.3450 with the same stop.
Sellers trapped, we can hold longs for a while. I'll watch to trail stops and add soon.
Above all resistances, we can rally over $50 now.
If you subscribe to Glenn Neely's Neowave method, plotting wave counts in oil, is not doable as per his material. If you follow Pretcher and co., or have your own flavor, it's a quite subjective method to begin with, which is why I don't use it. Trying to predict the outcome of not one, but multiple waves ahead of you, is not a very good idea in general. Specially not in this enviroment we're in.
Some people add some twists to it, to have more 'tradeable' signals from it (like Anil Mangal here, for instance), some clearer technical rule to apply the analysis somehow.
I still don't want to use that type of method, when what I have works well.
My main message is: trying to analyze very complex patterns, before they are completed, and without considering the post-pattern reaction to confirm your wave count was correct, is a bad idea.
Elliott wave patterns don't pop out of nowhere, they belong to a larger structure, so, in order for you to say this is a zigzag, you would have to have an idea of where a pattern ended, and where this zigzag started at the very least. Hope that clarifies what I mean, that it isn't easy to analyze this with EW, and produce trading results.
To anyone arguing against this point: if you add a technical setup, or a confirmation, a post pattern confirmation, like 'buy the breakout', buy at support here/buy the fib, or whatever you use, then it's more akin to a 'breakout strategy', or a trendline or channel, or whatever, strategy and not only an analysis and forecasting method, which is what EW tries to do, with rather relaxed rules, that are prone to incredibly varied amounts of interpretations.
Time at mode, and the methods outlined by Tim West, have way fewer interpretations, if you follow all technical rules and guidelines, we will almost always arrive to the same conclusion, if you were to apply it. This makes it a more sound technical approach, very clear rules, our own 'this is an impulse' like Anil says for instance. If you can't come to an objetive and rules based conclusion, I'd reccomend against that method you're using.
I hope you don't take offense in my words. I'm just trying to help based on my experience in this field.