I have always been drawn to the wyckoff model. Just like many other forms of somewhat complex TA models I wonder if we are looking at animals in the clouds (speaking of clouds... that is the one TA discipline I COMPLETELY do NOT understand, although I enjoy our Toxic's charts).
Also don't really understand clouds much either. I understand the algorithm broadly speaking, but not to so much the relevance. Also appreciate Toxic's chart for this reason, as helps to elaborate a bit. While being far from an expert, I find Wyckoff interesting/useful, as there are clearly defined structure for accumulation and distribution, that has been accurate for the topping out early in the year around $50K-60K, as well as the re-accumulation at $30K-$40K. Notably the increase in volume at the end period of accumulation with a "spring" as well as a decrease in volume and a lower high rejection for distribution.
Hence for now I consider the current short-term trading range to resemble more of an accumulation zone than distribution, but only time will tell.
I feel like we are witnessing the biggest game of global financial chicken ever played.
Agree I think the current price range (roughly 50% retracement from the $28K to $69K move) is a big game of chicken as you put it. The conservative upside target is roughly 2x, while the conservative draw-down would be around 50% (to the 200 Week MA I imagine). While it seems like a low risk/reward setup (1:1), there is certainly more upside potential than downside. As considering a more
liberal outlook, the upside potential from here could quite easily be 3x, 4x, 5x, etc. Whereas, the downside, that'd likely take many months, is probably only to around $25K, given how quickly the 200 Week MA is rising.
Therefore those who prefer less risk will be included to take profits or reduce position sizes. Those who are more "risk tolerant" will likely see that the risk/reward here is worthwhile.
Hence $48K always being a key price level for me.
$48k for you, and $42k for me, and surely for me $45k or sub $45k would start to get my attention more, merely because at that point, we would be getting close to my area of interest... so still seems like nothing to write home about, even though it would feel better for me to be higher in the $42k to $62k range rather than lower... right in the middle would be nice.. but bitcoin does not tend to want to do nice..
For me $48K is relevant more
short-term, getting rejected by this level (as has happened multiple times now) increases chances of testing lower levels like $44K, $42K, even $40K.
Of course for me, if we were to be trying to calling odds for a break out then the smaller range $46k to $48k is most immediate then the $46k to $52k becomes a bit broader but still remains decently immediate.. so yeah, should these little mini-battles be all noise? and can we get back into the middle of the broader $42k to $62k range in order to be able to relax a wee bit more?
For now I'd say the immediate range is around $46K to $52K, with a broader range of $42K (definite gap below here to $40K) to around $59K (not a lot of volume above here).
Otherwise, the range is $28K to $69K for past 12 months. So yes, there is definitely an argument for current trading to be "noise" on diversity of time-frames.
As a delayed reply, there is nothing squiggly about a logarithmic curve. To put it simply, a curve, like a straight line, is far from random. Specifically in the case of Bitcoin whereby price for the past decade has remained within a logarithmic curve (both to the upside as well as downside). The reason it "looks good" is simply because it's an accurate from of statistical analysis based on a very simple algorithm, not much else.
Probably my main criticism would be the presumption that the upwards slope is flattening as much as you are depicting it to do or that it is inclined to do..
I'm not depicting that the upwards slope is flattening, or presuming such a idea. Bitcoin's price has depicted such a fact, no-one else. Either that, or
logarithms are a failed form of mathematics, despite being universally accepted since the 17th century. It's been developed over the centuries but otherwise remains a relatively simplistic equation, and yet to be proved wrong. Nuff said.
Poll
