The Club!

And once again the unicorns


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
How A High Freak Algo Halted Bond Trading For 5 Seconds During Friday's Payrolls Release

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
Lockhart "Positive" Hawkishness Sparks Tapering Tumble In Stocks (Dow At Lows Of Year)


LOL
Do the FED really have something to say, or was it Goldman who gave the "GO" for declining markets (as previous stated)?

This is coordinated move from GS and FED on selling. Just like all moves since 2000 were in perfect sync. Didnt expect to see sell so quick though.

Thinking of opening acc with Bitfinex and short Bitcoins before January 31st. Expecting 30% drop of value. After that long trough mining.

http://www.safehaven.com/article/323...rrective-rally

Horvat

EW on EU

Get real:

Bitfinex is currently in a beta phase (testing phase) and the platform is operated under my own name, Raphael NICOLLE (founder), Patricia DURAND (co-founder and IT specialist), assisted by a group of associates. The company is incorporated in Hong Kong with limited liability and once the beta phase is completed the system will go live under the company.


Same as with BTC-e:

no address, no telephone, no registration/regulation - nothing


Have all the people lost their mind when it comes to BTC?

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
Spot The Idiotic Central Banker Statement


It gets better and better

I am completly real about risk i am taking. Thats why risking on what i can afford to lose. I know so far few brokers closed down and run away with money from account holders. The more positive thing is i am having my money in risk overall only for day or two, on short selling i plan to keep it only for 3 days and for btc-e exchange similar as i plan to withdraw asap.


Thanks for input though

http://www.plus500.co.uk/Help/AboutUs.aspx


why to go with a btc-bucketshop

try above link - plus500 is not the best broker, but better than every btc-bucket shop without address, without telephone, without registration, without regulation

Plus500 has Bitcoin as trading instrument?

http://www.plus500.co.uk/Instruments/BTCUSD

Thanks a lot infinitus, Plus500 it is then.

I will be selling GBP tomorrow agressively if it starts to weaken, if not then even better reward next time in February:
http://prntscr.com/2j3dsf
http://prntscr.com/2j3e2q
http://prntscr.com/2j3ejv

same here

GU has caused a lot of headache to me over the last months, since I try to establish long term short positions

maybe time is ripe now

If you use Murrey Math levels, you might be interested in an indie I created today.
Get it here >>> http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...67#post7210067

or better: where am I, or what, or why?
often not sure myself but life equals work for anything beyond 14h/day
just had a few days off over xmas but no time for skiing at moment

didn't trade over the holidays and have not followed the forum closely for a while - that won't change any time soon and anything below H4 is out of question as I cannot keep up intraday.

always good to see the club continues to be a good and nice place to hang out

PipTrapper i will take a look.

Darn still no sign on GBP correction. Planning longs above 1.6517 on GU. Pending long Coffe 122.70.

You may think my wave count is crazy or nuts, but I am working all markets as Cycle degree. If you truly want to keep an open mind about it then just remove your 4th wave in Cycle degree and see what you come up with in your gold wave count! I have never seen any wave analysts count out any expanded flats , never mind an expanded running flat. Expanded flats are more popular than regular flats are but yet nobody counts them! From Cycle degree wave 3 to any Cycle degree wave 4 bottom you cannot have any Primary degree 5 wave impulse runs anywhere. The little blue Elliott Wave Principle book is over 35 years old and has never been updated, nor have any ratios in it ever been confirmed. There is not a single ratio in the book that is a rule, they are all just guidelines, besides "C" wave crashes can regularly run 2.618 times the length of any "A" wave, and what can happen in one direction can happen in the other direction as well, at "all" degree levels. The $1919 rise above golds Cycle degree wave three ($850) in 1980, was only 2.25 times, this was a "pussy" or "wimpy" of a ratio!

D1: today offered a good entry as per above; bearish TKx is nearly confirmed by Chikou Span
H4: weak bullish tenkan kijun cross remains active but PA points down to 3626 before possible continuation

generally its all a bit inconclusive for me

Hi Bb2b,

first I have to apologize a bit, because I should have not called you "nuts". Sorry for that. I regularly read your blog, understand your intention/theory, and find it interesting.

Let me address first Gold. You have the B wave bottom @ around 260. So I ask you: where has the A wave started? Where did the initial impulse of Gold started?

Since your B wave is down, A and C have to be up.

Since Gold some time in history has started with an impulse up, an upward ABC can then only be a B wave of an ABC flat.

When I interpret this all right,


it started with an impulse, then it had an A wave correction down, then B-wave correction up to around 322, then C-wave down to 260 to make an ABC-running flat wave B

After that B wave we got the C-wave impulse up to 1920 area


Out of my sight, the C-wave up is in this way is minimum the 10-20 fold of the preceding A wave. I mean, you made the C-wave around 1660 points long.

How long is the corresponding A wave?

You said, I should remove the 4th wave of my cycle degree. Why should I do that? It would leave me with your problem to explain, why an asset which may have impulsed during its entire life into the 100 region (with your logic), should have an downside ABC, which unfolds as expanded flat, where the top at 1920 is the C-wave top of the B-wave (expanded flat). Unfortunately this B-wave up is the 10-20 fold of its corresponding A wave

If this count is true, I will give up on EW, because if true, anything can happen defying any logic, the right look and many more.



Regarding the use of fibs:

Elliott in his early work did not even use the fibs, when I remember correctly. It was later more and more incorporated, since the pundits felt, that the waves "often" had good inter-wave-fib-relationships.

There is nowhere in literature any convincing evidence, that one should relay to heavily on the fibs. Well, Prechter presented sometimes ago a study about the fib-wave-relationships and found evidence. Problem is: the fib-levels are many, and we can not predict, which one of them will be the turning point.


I think best work has been done by Swannell, who measured a lot of data over a very long time. He came up with distribution curves of wave relationships.

I have never seen, when I remember correctly, that the B-wave of a flat is 1000-2000% of its A wave. In long term falling commodities markets he had a wave B/Wave A relationship in a flat of 60% to 260%. Yes, the tail of the distribution curve went as high as 900 or 1000%, but simply the probability is here against you. Why go with low probability, when EW is all about high probability?


So with this being said, I do not make a religion out of fibs. I use them to find the probability zones, but do not alter my count, when the fib relationship in the end is not optimal.


Why do you feel the need, that all assets have to follow your cycle-theory at the same time? Some may have bottomed, while others have topped. There is no need in theory of cycles, that all assets are in synchronous cycles.

Back to your Gold chart: what will be the consequence of your count? Well, probably Gold will bottom again in the 260 range.

And that is exactly what Prechter or eventually me is predicting, without the need for a highly unlikely gigantic ABC.


So the discussion is, in the end, academic. (at least for the next years).


Yes, we do not know exactly, which wave degree we are in. Only history may give us high certainty.

Swannells work: http://www.forexfactory.com/attachme...mentid=1270920


Best to you,


Markus