Part Two:
What kind of Triangle, Alternative Counts, and What comes next:
There are mainly two counter arguments against *what the Count is*. The first of which would likely be made by an Elliotician of a particular mindset. This counter argument would concede that the Ratio is indeed in a Triangle, but claim that either:
A. It is in an Expanding Triangle
B. It is in some kind of Triangle, but we can not know or speculate as to what Category or Type it is, and 'where' (at what Degree and with which group of Waves) it is happening
In certain circles, there is a feigned, technical precision as to *what a Count is and isn't*, as opposed to *what a Count actually means* or implies about the future. It is a classic misunderstanding of the purpose of counting waves in the first place. Over the next part of this post I will be explaining how the above applies.
The LTCBTC Ratio is not in an Expanding Triangle:
Any Expanding Triangle Categorization of the LTCBTC Ratio would, necessarily, imply a Position of Section M2. Moreover, in an Expanding Triangle, Wave A or Wave B must meet the criteria of being the smallest wave for the purpose of Channeling. Any Count that actually incorporates an understanding that, on the LTCBTC Ratio, the Triple Zig Zag (M3) would have to be the largest Wave of *any Triangle, would be forced to acknowlege that the M2 Leg must be Positioned as either Wave A or B.
Section M3 can not be in the position of Wave E: Given the size of the supposed prior four Legs (this would necessarily take into account the price history of the rally not shown on the Bitfinex chart (Section M0), and presume the coin 'started trading in a Wave B'), Sections M1 and M2 would represent two *consecutive Legs that fail to fully retrace the prior, this is not allowable in any type of Expanding Triangle, for the purpose of Channeling. To consider the unshown rally (M0) on the LTCBTC Ratio as a Wave A of an Expanding, would run into the same problem. So you see, any consideration of an Expanding Triangle would need to have its' first Leg begin with either M1 or M2. When you consider that Wave E of any Expanding Triangle should be the largest Wave, this is, well, kind of a big issue: The Triple Zig Zag will be the largest wave of any Triangle, yet the Triple Zig Zag can not be in the position of Wave E! Going to be tougn to square that circle, or well, triangle it.
The above effectively eliminates any realistic Expanding Triangle Count on a historical Chart such as LTCBTC. Since I am the greatest ever, I will explain the remaining (largely fictional) scenarios that would represent the best case for 'some kind' of Expanding Triangle. To start to bring it all together, the problem with this thinking is that even if it were correct (which again it's not), it would necessarily imply an equally if not much more bullish (in most cases) scenario.
Let's pretend the big issue was a small issue, *and that there was no supporting evidence for one or more, better Counts. This would entail envisioning an Expanding that begins with section M1 or later, and obviously it can not begin with M3. For M1 to be Wave A of an Expanding (as opposed a Contracting), Wave B would fail to fully retrace A, so, even with the full retrace of Wave C, in an Irregular both Waves D and E each would need to FULLY retrace the prior (again more bullish). Using the same Positions, a Running Expanding would not work as Wave B is smaller than Wave A. For Completeness, there is, apparently, an odd variation of the pattern where all waves are larger than the previous, except Wave B, which is shorter than Wave C. In this exotic scenario, a different situation arises, which is actually common to a Contracting Triangle Categorization: the recent move up (M4) is way too small to be the Leg of any Triangle. A Triangle must have Clean Channel lines:
<
>
-A smaller degree wave of the prior Segment prevents the creation of a Clean (B-D) Base-line! This is true of *any supposed Wave D *having already completed* (as in incorrectly presumed to have already completed) 'as Segment M4', whether in an Expanding or Contracting.
So, to Count the LTCBTC Ratio as a Running Expanding (the odd variation) will necessarily come with the certainty that the current Leg is in still Progress and will need to make new highs in order to create a Clean Channel line. And really, more simply, and on the topic of 'what comes next': The Leg of *any Triangle of *any Type or Category must achieve a minimum of a .382 retracement of the prior Leg (with the exception of Wave E of a Contracting which is not possible). So, the implications of what is to come in this oddball scenario are not all that different, which is a huge move to the upside no matter how you slice it. It is only what is implied to happen *after the move up, in a Running Expanding that is pragmatically of different.
To consider an Expanding Triangle that begins with M2 as Wave A, you would be attempting to justify a Triple Zig Zag as Wave B, a beyond ridiculous notion in any context. But sure lets do it. As a Horizontal, this would again imply a coming FULL retrace for Wave C, only to be followed by another full retrace making new lows for Wave D, only to be followed by yet another full retrace to new highs for Wave E, possibly to eventually make new lows again after the pattern is complete. Don't hold your breath. A Running Expanding *here would actually be the most imaginably bullish scenario of all as coming Wave C would take LTCBTC to new all time highs. The oddball variation of the Running Expanding does not work. Should you play any of these ridiculous cards, unfortunately for you I will re-raise you all-in on the Running Expanding Triangle Wave C to new ATH's, *except* I can actually fit it into a Count that includes the entire Price history of the LTCBTC ratio...somebodehs bettaaaaa (Adam Sandler voice).
Oh, right, and also, as the greatest ever I did actually discover an oddball-oddball variation (that no one else has) since they have no idea how to read the book: since technically, in a Running Expanding, *two waves are allowed to be shorter than a prior, a third variation exists where by Wave A is shorter than Wave B AND Wave C is shorter than Wave D (say it with me now: Bigger, Smaller, Bigger, Smaller). Good. As it happens, this Kramer variation would still need an A-C line! So here, Wave C would suffer the same issue as described earlier with Wave D in creating a Clean Channel line! And if you are into the real kinky stuff, unfortunately you can not simply use an Abnormal, Expanding Triangle C-E line (another invention of mine) as the Wave E Terminus would destroy the Ascending or Descending 'bent' to the Channel lines (thus unallowably changing the Classification of the Triangle as Running). A Triangle is Classified by 'how it Channels' ...write that down.
The LTCBTC Ratio is *not in an Expanding Triangle. As for Counter Argument B (remember the two main Counter Arguments? Well this is 'Sub-Argument' 1B, I told you I would be getting to everything), this is another example of the failure to recognize the purpose of Counting Waves, and is put forth by those unfit for the task. They are glad to offer up a healthy dose of criticism and skepticism given the opportunity, yet never offer up their own Count. In my view, there is no such thing as a Count being 'wrong' with out an accompanying explanation for which Count is 'right.' Write that also.
The second Counter Argument requires a bit of creativity and the needed additional flexibility provided by the Beaty Method. Due to this aspect, it is unlikely anyone else would propose this count, which necessarily imploys a Candle Stick Measurement to Section M2, justifying *the consideration* of a Flat Correction. In my estimation, this would be the best Non-Triangle explanation for the historical Price action on the LTCBTC Ratio. To be specific, the market would have to have just completed (as opposed to 'being in') a 'B Failure' Flat Correction, which ends in a lower degree Terminally Impulsive Wave C. Similarly, the implications of 'what come next' are even more bullish: a FULL retrace of the supposed eXtended third wave Terminal Impulse, but here within (technically) 25-50% of the time that (new) Segment M3 took to form. So, yet another, more bullish outlook than coming Wave D of a Contracting Triangle. But guess what, this Count is also incorrect. In the following Chart, I explain why:
<
>
-As always, all detail and annotation are of significance. In short, the supposed B Failure Flat is only made possible by a reimagining of the end of (former) Section M2. In doing so, the little support a Flat interpretation had going for it is thrown out with the bath water of the supposed later end of the Segment. Note: Do not be fooled into conflating this with how the Time of a Pattern is characteristically impacted by a *lower Degree* Terminal Impulses' overextension of a trend. For instance, a Terminal C Wave vs a C Wave *ending in a Terminal.
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Horizontal, Contracting Triangle:
Over the years I have spoken at length about *how to read the book (bleh). A common hurdle many beginners have is in the lack of understanding and recognition that, while every part is important, cherry picking any piece of the puzzle and putting it on a pedastol is an exercize that will inevitably lead you to failure. The 'matter of fact' tone that is used throughout is part of the game of appreciating that there is Truth in seemingly contradictory concepts, and thus, to take any one part as gospel as you read through the book will result in all of the hair on your head being pulled out. Conversely, grasping the real significance of any individual part necessarily requires the ability to read for both Subtext *and Context. To be on the offensive for one particular excerpt that the beginner might misinterpret as being in support of this count being wrong, I will quote it here and explain what is likely meant, and if it is not, what should be meant (yes, as the greatest to ever live, my explanation is more important).
The following can be found in Chapter 11 under the heading Contracting Triangles, Sub-headings a. Horizontal, Wave B:
"If wave-b is smaller in price than wave-a, then all the other patterns must be smaller than the previous segment (From Left to Right). If wave-b is bigger than wave-a, the chances are very small (but do exist), that wave-c might be slightly larger than wave-b and still maintain the Contracting Triangle formation. If the c-wave is larger than wave-b, it is mandatory that wave-d be smaller than wave-c or else you are entering the Expanding Triangle realm and should move to that section. In other words, in this type of Triangle, once one segment is smaller in price than the last, all the rest must be smaller than the previous. If this is not the case, the market is not in a Contracting Horizontal Triangle. Maybe it is in some other type of Triangle. Note: Wave-b should not be less than 38.2% or more than 261.8% of wave-a. There may be exceptions to the foregoing guidelines, but they are rare, so be careful about ignoring them."
In this instance, the key is found not just in the subtext, but also context, on many different levels. Context in terms of the paragraph it is in, as well as the entire section describing how each leg of a Triangle may differ (Wave by Wave and according to each Type of Triangle), but most importantly, in terms of how it applies to my analysis of the LTCBTC Ratio. After disecting what is being said in the above excerpt, AND what is being said without being said, I will dig into how the larger section applies to the LTCBTC Ratio.
A common theme in all of my analysis, and I would argue, in the book as well, is that Internal measurement is vastly more important than External. As I have layed out, there is value in viewing the measurement of a Retracement as being in its' own seperate category from the two prior concepts. In the case of Triangles, both of the following ideas emphatically hold true:
a. Internal measurement rules the Price Relativity of waves.
b. Retracement is the tool most relevant with regard to a need to compare Adjacent waves in accordance with the objective implied by its' nomenclature.
Finally, there is one more 'phrase' needed to complete the point: 'For the purpose of Channeling.' In order to properly understand both the 'contracting' excerpt (hint), as well as the larger section, internalizing the above perspective is essential.
Now, I will break down the excerpt bit by bit, providing the subtext and context:
"If wave-b is smaller in price than wave-a, then all the other patterns must be smaller than the previous segment (From Left to Right)."
-Do not fall into the trap of believing an impression about how a given section of a chart might 'look' or seem: Absent an understanding of precisely what it is you are even *looking for*, your thoughts, feelings, and/or perception in the matter are irrelevant. In the context of the LTCBTC Ratio, Wave B is by far the biggest wave at a ~515% change in price. It is easily bigger than Wave C, thus, the above quoted sentence is not applicable.
"If wave-b is bigger than wave-a, the chances are very small (but do exist), that wave-c might be slightly larger than wave-b and still maintain the Contracting Triangle formation."
-As we will eventually get to: despite the fact that Wave C is smaller than Wave B, it is actually the largest leg of the Triangle. In case you haven't listened to any of my past lectures, the word largest implies a Wave is both the biggest *and the longest. And yes: it will maintain its' Contracting Triangle formation. Patience will be required to understand the above paragraph, rest assured, I did not misspeak.
"If the c-wave is larger than wave-b, it is mandatory that wave-d be smaller than wave-c or else you are entering the Expanding Triangle realm and should move to that section."
-As far as the LTCBTC Ratio is concerned, Wave D will indeed be smaller than Wave C, even after the coming rally in prices, so long as it is correctly measured. Contextually, the task at hand is ruling out an Expanding Triangle Classification. To farther accomplish this task, the relevant, Price-relative, measurement of Wave C in relation to Wave B falls underneath the umbrella of finding the biggest wave of a Triangle: the mere happenstance of adjacency to Wave B, is equally important as Wave B's adjacency to Wave A, entirely unimportant to the scope of the above. Given the biggest leg of a Contracting Triangle is known, so long as Wave C (or any wave subsequent to the biggest wave) does not improperly alter the convergence of channel lines--there is zero marginal importance (with regard to LTCBTC or in any other equivalant scenario for that matter).
"In other words, in this type of Triangle, once one segment is smaller in price than the last, all the rest must be smaller than the previous."
-Yes, as for the LTCBTC Ratio, the first Segment that is smaller in price than the previous is Wave C, each subsequent leg will indeed be smaller thereafter: Wave B is bigger than Wave A, Wave C is smaller than Wave B, the final two waves each will be smaller than the prior.
Each of my responses might seem odd, and perhaps, to the unitiated, contradictory, but as you will see they most cetainly are not. Not only are they technically correct, but correct in the spirit of what is true about Triangles and how juan should approach them. Let me explain: First off, as I have always maintained, regarding the Price Relativity of waves: Internal measurement is most important. It seeks to answer the question: "How do I evaluate and compare the size of waves?" In Triangles, the most relevant application is in comparing Waves A, C, and E with each other, and similarly, Waves B and D. Now it becomes important to understand the context.
Take a step back and think about the quoted excerpt. Explicitly, there is an exploring of a scenario where Wave B is bigger than Wave A, and a farther exploring given the condition that Wave C is bigger than Wave B. And what is this all in reference to? Nuance about the legs of a Triangle (in this case a Horizontal) within the Realm of Contracting Triangles. Consider that Wave D can not be the largest leg of any Triangle. Inherent in the prior statement is that Wave D also can not be the biggest leg of any Triangle (a truth that exists in terms of any measurement approach). What am I getting at? I am getting at the fact, that the biggest wave of any Contracting Triangle must be one of the first three waves (A, B, or C). So, in other words, the excerpt revolves around contemplating the biggest leg of a Triangle, and how, in turn, it might affect the rest of a Triangles' formation. Inherent to such a contemplation is the question: "How is the Price-Relative size of waves compared?"
Now, in the name of progressing towards a point: Let us consider both the wider Contracting Triangle Heading, and, the more narrow idea of a Converging (contracting) Manifestation of waves (getting smaller moving from left to right) the context becomes: "How do we compare the Price-Relative size of waves?" ... "For the purpose of Channeling?"
Understand?! Pragmatically the point is a question necessarily made up of two component parts.
With the appropriate context, we can now decipher the subtext that is actually put forth in the following excerpt sentences:
"If the c-wave is larger than wave-b, it is mandatory that wave-d be smaller than wave-c or else you are entering the Expanding Triangle realm and should move to that section."
"In other words, in this type of Triangle, once one segment is smaller in price than the last, all the rest must be smaller than the previous."
-With new eyes, and the decoded subtext provided above, ask yourself: how exactly should a Contracting Triangles' characteristics be evaluated? The answer is easy: First, determine the biggest (Price-relative) wave internally amongst Waves A, B, and C. Second, determine whether or not the remaining waves unfold on a 'contracting basis' *for the purposes of Channeling.*
Put differently: The goal is to verify and validate the existence of converging, opposing Channel lines, and finding a Triangle's biggest wave happens to be a prerequisite. Naturally, at least for the skilled, a comparison of the (Price) relative size of waves is done internally, yet the subsequent verification and validation has *no contemplation* involving an Internally or Externally focused measurement approach. In fact, in this instance, a quantifiable measurement is not even necessary beyond the ability to conclude a Convergence of Channel lines. Drink that in. It plays a vital *part in understanding: Wave C is the Largest wave of the Triangle (on the LTCBTC Ratio (For all intensive purposes)), how that is true, and why it is important that it is true.
Thus far, it is perhaps apparent that the following is notably missing from the specific excerpt and my accompanying comments: a differentiation between 'how each of the three Types of Contracting Triangles channel.' This will be needed in order to properly discuss Waves B and C of the LTCBTC Ratio Triangle. It is not by accident that I have *not completely detailed how each 'Type of Triangle channels,' nor is it's early absence within the Contracting Triangle section of the book (which contains the earlier excerpt).
The early omission of 'how a Horizontal Triangle channels,' is, eventually, indirectly defined. That is to say, we ARE told 'how the other Types of triangles channel' directly(ish in the case of an Irregular Triangle) under the subsequent Triangle Type Headings. What is said, yet left unsaid, is that a Horizontal Triangle is in essence, the broader category of a Contracting Triangle, but defined by categorical negation: A Horizontal Triangle is a Contracting Triangle that is neither an Irregular, nor a Running, Triangle.
Since the purpose of this post is not to cover a book, yet its' relevance in informing the historical Elliot Wave Count of the LTCBTC Ratio does eXtend a bit farther and further to the larger Contracting Triangle Section, I will highlight a few remaining, applicable concepts amidst adding a bit of my own spice to it all. Going forward, the overarching conclusion I will be establishing is that 'Channeling' is the primary differentiating attribute with respect to each Triangle Type.
This conclusion is both directly and indirectly supported by the larger section about Contracting Triangles. Directly, this is fairly obvious in the Classification of a Running Triangle: the 'Terminus' of Waves B and D...For the purposes of channeling...Set this type of Triangle apart from the rest. Due to the potential size of Wave B, which must be the largest leg of the triangle, coupled with the atypical (pattern-unique) minimum retracement needed for Wave D, the converging Channel lines in a Running distinctly form an ascending or descending 'bent.' It should not be controversial to state that the LTCBTC Ratio is indisputably *not in a Running Triangle: both the 12 month time-span taken by Wave B (m2), as well as Wave C's (m3) status as the largest leg make any consideration of the pattern a non-starter. Again, we are talking about the historical chart, and you can refer to the earlier chart I provided to map the labels shown in paranthesis.
To be clear: the word 'Retracement' is explicitly mentioned on numerous occasions throughout this section, and, is the otherwise implied form of measurement for the vast majority of the time. In order to fulfill the sections' purpose of Classifying each Type of Triangle by stipulating the acceptable manners by which their Channel lines Converge, the concept of a Retracement is appropriately used.
The significance of my hammering the above into your head, is to help explain how Channeling subtly classifies an Irregular Triangle: An Irregular Triangle is 'characterised by it's B Wave.' To farther paraphrase: Wave B *must be bigger than Wave A in Price, and rarely will be shorter in Time. Under the Wave A sub-heading of the larger degree Irregular Triangle sub-heading, we are told that Wave B should not be 'much more than 161.8%' of Wave A, do not be fooled by the use of a % sign: Just like ALL of the books' other *Wave Type distinguishing* Wave B (Price) measurements, Retracement is strictly used. Logically, this makes perfect sense, as the aim is to consider how much ground an adjacent wave covered in terms of the prior wave (Wave A).
While the Irregular Triangle sub-section does not directly state this (more later): it is *required* in an Irregular that the Base-line begin from 'above' the start of Wave A, which Typifies the Pattern. Admittedly, the above can occur in each of the other Two Types, yet they *musn't (while the author of this post has never personally witnessed it, in theory, its' *absence could even occur in a Running Triangle: Wave B would still need the requisite *internal size and the Pattern would have to not be explained by any other Classification). To farther unravel this thread, similarly, it is the extent of Retracement achieved by Waves C (as compared to a Horizontal Triangle) and D (as compared to a Running Triangle) which *differentiate how this pattern Channels.
For those who would doubt my above assertion, and to transition from that particular Contracting Triangle Section to my final comments on the book, a farther corroboration of just what exactly it is about Wave B that 'characterizes' an Irregular Triangle can be found in Chapter 10-8 (Advanced Logic Rules) under the heading "I. Limiting" and directly found under the sub-heading "b. Irregular:"
"Since the b-wave in one of these patterns exceeds the end of wave-a, it implies the pattern is more powerful than a Horizontal (in either price direction). The thrust out of this variation can be as much as 161.8% of the widest leg of the Triangle."
Note: The word "end" necessarily refers to 'an end' (as in one of two ends of a given wave) in this case unironically being the *start of Wave A: Since it would literally be impossible for Wave B (contextually: the conclusion of Wave B in an Irregular Triangle) to exceed the 'end end' of Wave A (as they are Counter Directionally Trending to each other), it is easy to determine the word should be taken to mean start. The 'end end' of Wave A also serves as the beginning of Wave B, thus the 'end end' of Wave B could not exceed it's own begining, outside the context of a Negative Retracement. I award you no points, may god have mercy on your soul.
The LTCBTC Ratio is in an 'Abnormal,' Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle:
From any angle you care to look at it, the LTCBTC Ratio is in an 'Abnormal' Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle. The goal of this post was to touch on each of the following conclusions and how they were formed:
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in another Type of Correction: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Contracting Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in an Expanding Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Horizontal Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in a Running or Irregular Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Abnormal Triangle: Let's do it
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in a 'Normal' Triangle: Baby
The Wave Type is widdled down ('chizzled down,' 'chipped away at,' 'narrowed down' Not: 'I'm a widdle baby who can't count waves') from the broadest of categories. Most (who are not me) gloss over this Pattern in the good book, it does not draw much attention, but it is there, and is also, additionly, spoken about by way of implication (hint). There is a specific criteria needed to be met in order for a Triangle to be considered 'Abnormal.' Anyway, what makes a triangle Abnormal is really, above all, (you guessed it) the manner by which it Channels. The criteria that must be met helps contribute to this differentiation. Is it starting to click?
'Similar' to the Classification process of all other Contracting Triangles, first, the *largest Leg of the Triangle must be determined (here, yes the biggest leg, but additionally the longest, explicitly said to be 'the largest'). Again, sure, as a type of Contracting Triangle there is inherently a subsequent verification and validation of Converging Channel lines. Also again, the manner by which these Channel lines Converge differentiates the Classification! Also, again, this is not explicitly said, yet it is still equally as true. Farther, again, 'Retracement *Levels' are, similarly, used in pursuit of differentiating 'how the Pattern Channels.' Here, my use of the term 'Retracement Level' is a bit of a misnomer (sorta kinda) in that the aim is not truly to measure how much 'ground' was lost or retraced. Yet, the meaning of the term as far as it's logic is well understood, even outside the world of Elliot Wave. In this case, though, the true differentiating factor in Classification is, totally unambiguous: Channeling.
I didn't say there was no subtext, I said it was unambiguous: The Pattern is differentiated by 'how it Channels'. Oh, and if you don't believe me about any of this, refer to Chapter 12 in "Mastering Elliot Wave" Advanced Neely Extensions 12-17 and check out the three diagrams which illustrate the different ways a Contracting Triangle 'Contra Base line' can be imployed. Tell me, just exactly what Type of Triangle is Diagram B?! Prease, do tell. Also, prease do tell: Are you sure Wave B MUST be bigger than Wave A--in order for Wave C to be bigger than B?
Anyway, in an Abnormal Contracting, Wave E must conclude outside of '61.8% of the longest Wave of the Triangle, centered in the largest wave' ...do not be fooled by the use of a % sign frens (as opposed to a fraction): it is not relevant. Basically, in this Type of Triangle, one of the two other (abnormal) 'Contra Base-lines' will be imployed depending upon the Terminus of the larger of Waves A and C. Really, as funny as it might sound, part of the prior statement should, in truth, be ammended to: 'Depending upon the Terminus of Waves A and C, for the purpose of Channeling (the closer in Price to Wave E), which ultimately dictates the larger of the two waves.' I say this because, despite the reality that most of the time both trains of thought will agree as to which wave is the largest (in this case), 'disagreements' are possible. Compare this manner of Channeling with that of a 'Normal Triangle,' where the (normal) A-C 'Contra Base-line will be imployed and it all starts to make sense.
How to measure the Biggest, Longest, and Largest Leg in a Triangle and Chart Scaling:
So, to put a period on it: Wave C is the largest leg of the Contracting Triangle on the LTCBTC Ratio. It is the largest because it is both the longest in Time and the biggest in Price (for the purpose of Channeling). Yes, there are two biggest Waves depending on what the precise aim is, which determines how it should be accomplished...for the purpose of Channeling. Wave B is the Price-Relative biggest wave (measured Internally). Yes, I am aware this is a prerequisite step towards determining the biggest Leg of a Contracting Triangle, for the purpose of Channeling. Guess what: *How the biggest or largest leg of a Triangle is determined, depends on 'how a given **Type** of Triangle Channels.'
Hands down, for the purpose of Channeling, Wave C is the biggest wave, above all, due to 'how an Abnormal, Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle Channels.' 'How an Abnormal, Horizontal Contracting Triangle Channels' is necessarily informed by the fact that it is, more broadly, a Contracting Triangle, thus it is, in a sense, indirectly informed by the fact that Wave B is the biggest wave (as far as the Price-Relativity of Waves goes).
There are at least three good reasons that, ultimately, again, Wave C is the biggest leg of the LTCBTC Triangle:
1. Time: Every Triangle must have a largest leg, and part of that, is that this leg must be, at least from a certain angle, also considered the biggest leg. So, since Wave C is the longest Time-wise, it would be tough to make a case for any of the other three waves being the largest wave, especially when you consider the next two reasons.
2. Wave Type: Wave C is a Triple Zig Zag, a Pattern which must be the largest wave of *any larger Pattern, including a Triangle. If Wave C must be the largest wave...this also dictates that it is the biggest wave, as the largest wave is *both the biggest (Price-wise) and the longest (Time-wise).
3. Channeling: MOST IMPORTANTLY, Wave C is biggest Leg...for the purpose of Channeling. Well, akshually, in this case, it is the largest leg...for the purpose of Channeling, which dictates that it is also the biggest leg. Channeling is what differentiates each Type of Triangle, have I mentioned this? In an Abnormal, Horizontal, Contracting Triangle, the manner by which Converging Channel lines are different, is that the 'Contra Base-line' will connect either Wave A or Wave C to Wave E, depending upon which Terminus is closer in Price to the Terminus of Wave E (appearance-wise this will usually take the form of a 'flatter' Contra Base-line than that of a Normal Triangle). Since Time is arguably of a bit more importance in how an Abnormal, Contracting channels, here it is the largest wave that dictates the biggest wave (in theory but in my view not in practice)...for the purpose of Channeling. Inherent to this Logic is the assumption that Time plays a relatively bigger role (because otherwise the biggest wave would be used) in influencing the likelihood that the bigger of Waves A or C (yes) will Cleanly connect to Wave E. Put differently: There is a bigger weight on the 'degree of Non-Directionality' of a Wave, necessarily anticipating its' effect on the bigger of the two waves Cleanly connecting to Wave E. Mkay?
Lost on the vast majority of readers, is the understanding that there is 'Logic' at play. If you wish to understand the book, or what I have been laying out in this post, you must drop what you think a word 'means.' The same word or term can have different meanings in different contexts. To be clear: I am not refering to the reality that different people will always, *to some extent*, have their own interpretation of what something means, but rather, how an author can intentionally and justifiably use the same word in different contexts 'differently.' For example, compare the following two sentences: Bob is a Lawyer, he 'practices' Law. After work, he 'practices' basketball. The example is not perfect, but it gets the point across: the word 'practice' is not misused, it has a very different meaning depending upon the context, yet there is a general consensus as to how the words' meaning changes in each case. And no, in the prior sentence, I do not mean 'case' as in a Law case, you, the reader, obviously know this by taking the context of the sentence into account (not a thing with a balance, okay you get it). Not only is this idea true of everyday language, but it is of extreme importance when reading for subtext. In the book, Terms are defined using a specific Logic, yet language is amviguous, when there is a conflict or contradiction between the two, it is the established hierarchy of Logic that rules.
Anyway, akshually, if arguing over the biggest Leg of a Triangle--without any regard as to *why it matters--is your goal, sure, I'll play: There is an argument to be made that each of the first three legs are the biggest Leg, each in their own way. Wave C is the biggest leg for all three of the reasons listed earlier. Wave B is the biggest leg Internally. As it would happen, Wave A is the biggest leg on a Raw, total change in Price basis, the others are nowhere near as close! So why is Wave A not the biggest wave for any relevant reason? That is easy, it is the same reason that Log Scale should be used on the chart: Any market Pair that has (or is expected to) experience explosive growth in Prices should be analysed accordingly. In other words, in these markets, absent this scaling, there is no way to appropriately compare past, current, and future price movements on a *relative basis. On a Linear Chart, the most recent explosive move dwarfs any past moves distorting the Frame or 'Field of View,' history is made to be entirely irrelevant, when it is, obviously, relevant. On a similar note, using the Raw change in Price of a wave as opposed to the percentage change, distorts the 'relativity' of moves: Again, Wave A using the Raw change in Price presents the data as if the following 515% rally as well as subsequent 91% decrease in Price were of little to no significance. Ask someone who used Bitcoin to buy Litecoin before the rally, and sold anywhere in the viscinity of the top if there nearly 5x the amount of Bitcoin is of no significance. Similarly, ask the other person who did the same thing prior to the subsequent drop, if the 1/10 amount of Bitcoin they now have is of no significance. Not only are these moves of great significance in any analysis, but they are actually of more signifcance, slightly so in the case of Wave C. That is all irrespective of Elliot Wave.
No matter what approach is used in all of this stuff, there will always be tradeoffs. In charting the LTCBTC Ratio (or any coins paired against each other), Elliot Wave or not, using the Raw changes in Price will wildly distort your impression of the data, and what it means. The decision to use Log Scale goes hand in hand with using % measurement over Raw data, the only difference being that one has an effect on how given, chosen data is measured and the other has an effect on the presentation of the larger data set. It is the same mindset that recognizes the severe disadvantage in both Raw change in Price measurement and Linear Scaling of an exponentially growing market.
Conclusion: The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in a 'Normal' Triangle:
Due to Terminus of the largest leg of what will be a Contracting, Horizontal Triangle, the Contra Base-line will necessarily have to be a 'C-E Line.' The Terminus of Wave A can not be used in a 'Normal' Contracting Triangle! To do so would create a descending Contra Base-line. Thus, by way of negation, it can actually be concluded that the LTCBTC Ratio is in an Abnormal, Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle. Using this technique, such a conclusion can actually be made before the Triangle is complete. This creates a rare opportunity in that, usually, this can not be done reliably in an Expanding Triangle (their Classification must be done 'after the fact'). There is also relatively more predictive value than any other Contracting Triangle in that we can already deduce a reasonable estimate for the size of Wave E subsequent to the coming Wave D rally:
-Wave E must touch the Line created by connecting Wave C with the M4 Interim Low.
-Since Wave A can not be the smallest leg of any Contracting Triangle, Wave E must be smaller than Wave A.
-Wave E will likely relate to Waves A and/or C in Price and/or Time by a Fibonacci Ratio. While this is not unique to an Abnormal, it is of more significance due to the nature of Wave E in an Abnormal, as well as this one in particular.
Wave E aside, we know that the coming rally must not only make new highs sufficient to create a Clean Base-line, but farther it must achieve, at a minimum, a .382 Retracement of the prior leg, on the LTCBTC Ratio that is a BIG move:
<
>
-Wave C Retracement Levels
Not much unlike the failure to understand *what a Count means* by Ellioticians, is the inability, more generally, of analysts to properly put a move into perspective. The above context of the move is on a coin's (Litecoin) Price *against Bitcoin*, in what is the precipice of the largest bull market in the history of Bitcoin:
< >
The coming Wave D rally is, in it of itself, a big deal. In terms of what the larger Abnormal Triangle suggests about the big picture, there is a lot to be gleemed here as well. The Contracting Horizontal 'status' alone, already provides a minimum, longer term, upside projection in that the larger Degree 'move to follow' must take LTCBTC to new ATHs (the price must exceed the *begining* of Wave A). The prior statement is true regardless of the Triangles' Categorization as Limiting or Non Limiting. With that said, the Classification of an Abnormal suggests the Triangle is actually a Non Limiting Triangle (in terms of what the Wave Type in it of itself implies).
As it would happen, there is indeed a larger Count such a Triangle would fit into. It is a Count that I have spoken about in the past. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't say much more, it won't be easy. Good luck.
What kind of Triangle, Alternative Counts, and What comes next:
There are mainly two counter arguments against *what the Count is*. The first of which would likely be made by an Elliotician of a particular mindset. This counter argument would concede that the Ratio is indeed in a Triangle, but claim that either:
A. It is in an Expanding Triangle
B. It is in some kind of Triangle, but we can not know or speculate as to what Category or Type it is, and 'where' (at what Degree and with which group of Waves) it is happening
In certain circles, there is a feigned, technical precision as to *what a Count is and isn't*, as opposed to *what a Count actually means* or implies about the future. It is a classic misunderstanding of the purpose of counting waves in the first place. Over the next part of this post I will be explaining how the above applies.
The LTCBTC Ratio is not in an Expanding Triangle:
Any Expanding Triangle Categorization of the LTCBTC Ratio would, necessarily, imply a Position of Section M2. Moreover, in an Expanding Triangle, Wave A or Wave B must meet the criteria of being the smallest wave for the purpose of Channeling. Any Count that actually incorporates an understanding that, on the LTCBTC Ratio, the Triple Zig Zag (M3) would have to be the largest Wave of *any Triangle, would be forced to acknowlege that the M2 Leg must be Positioned as either Wave A or B.
Section M3 can not be in the position of Wave E: Given the size of the supposed prior four Legs (this would necessarily take into account the price history of the rally not shown on the Bitfinex chart (Section M0), and presume the coin 'started trading in a Wave B'), Sections M1 and M2 would represent two *consecutive Legs that fail to fully retrace the prior, this is not allowable in any type of Expanding Triangle, for the purpose of Channeling. To consider the unshown rally (M0) on the LTCBTC Ratio as a Wave A of an Expanding, would run into the same problem. So you see, any consideration of an Expanding Triangle would need to have its' first Leg begin with either M1 or M2. When you consider that Wave E of any Expanding Triangle should be the largest Wave, this is, well, kind of a big issue: The Triple Zig Zag will be the largest wave of any Triangle, yet the Triple Zig Zag can not be in the position of Wave E! Going to be tougn to square that circle, or well, triangle it.
The above effectively eliminates any realistic Expanding Triangle Count on a historical Chart such as LTCBTC. Since I am the greatest ever, I will explain the remaining (largely fictional) scenarios that would represent the best case for 'some kind' of Expanding Triangle. To start to bring it all together, the problem with this thinking is that even if it were correct (which again it's not), it would necessarily imply an equally if not much more bullish (in most cases) scenario.
Let's pretend the big issue was a small issue, *and that there was no supporting evidence for one or more, better Counts. This would entail envisioning an Expanding that begins with section M1 or later, and obviously it can not begin with M3. For M1 to be Wave A of an Expanding (as opposed a Contracting), Wave B would fail to fully retrace A, so, even with the full retrace of Wave C, in an Irregular both Waves D and E each would need to FULLY retrace the prior (again more bullish). Using the same Positions, a Running Expanding would not work as Wave B is smaller than Wave A. For Completeness, there is, apparently, an odd variation of the pattern where all waves are larger than the previous, except Wave B, which is shorter than Wave C. In this exotic scenario, a different situation arises, which is actually common to a Contracting Triangle Categorization: the recent move up (M4) is way too small to be the Leg of any Triangle. A Triangle must have Clean Channel lines:
<
-A smaller degree wave of the prior Segment prevents the creation of a Clean (B-D) Base-line! This is true of *any supposed Wave D *having already completed* (as in incorrectly presumed to have already completed) 'as Segment M4', whether in an Expanding or Contracting.
So, to Count the LTCBTC Ratio as a Running Expanding (the odd variation) will necessarily come with the certainty that the current Leg is in still Progress and will need to make new highs in order to create a Clean Channel line. And really, more simply, and on the topic of 'what comes next': The Leg of *any Triangle of *any Type or Category must achieve a minimum of a .382 retracement of the prior Leg (with the exception of Wave E of a Contracting which is not possible). So, the implications of what is to come in this oddball scenario are not all that different, which is a huge move to the upside no matter how you slice it. It is only what is implied to happen *after the move up, in a Running Expanding that is pragmatically of different.
To consider an Expanding Triangle that begins with M2 as Wave A, you would be attempting to justify a Triple Zig Zag as Wave B, a beyond ridiculous notion in any context. But sure lets do it. As a Horizontal, this would again imply a coming FULL retrace for Wave C, only to be followed by another full retrace making new lows for Wave D, only to be followed by yet another full retrace to new highs for Wave E, possibly to eventually make new lows again after the pattern is complete. Don't hold your breath. A Running Expanding *here would actually be the most imaginably bullish scenario of all as coming Wave C would take LTCBTC to new all time highs. The oddball variation of the Running Expanding does not work. Should you play any of these ridiculous cards, unfortunately for you I will re-raise you all-in on the Running Expanding Triangle Wave C to new ATH's, *except* I can actually fit it into a Count that includes the entire Price history of the LTCBTC ratio...somebodehs bettaaaaa (Adam Sandler voice).
Oh, right, and also, as the greatest ever I did actually discover an oddball-oddball variation (that no one else has) since they have no idea how to read the book: since technically, in a Running Expanding, *two waves are allowed to be shorter than a prior, a third variation exists where by Wave A is shorter than Wave B AND Wave C is shorter than Wave D (say it with me now: Bigger, Smaller, Bigger, Smaller). Good. As it happens, this Kramer variation would still need an A-C line! So here, Wave C would suffer the same issue as described earlier with Wave D in creating a Clean Channel line! And if you are into the real kinky stuff, unfortunately you can not simply use an Abnormal, Expanding Triangle C-E line (another invention of mine) as the Wave E Terminus would destroy the Ascending or Descending 'bent' to the Channel lines (thus unallowably changing the Classification of the Triangle as Running). A Triangle is Classified by 'how it Channels' ...write that down.
The LTCBTC Ratio is *not in an Expanding Triangle. As for Counter Argument B (remember the two main Counter Arguments? Well this is 'Sub-Argument' 1B, I told you I would be getting to everything), this is another example of the failure to recognize the purpose of Counting Waves, and is put forth by those unfit for the task. They are glad to offer up a healthy dose of criticism and skepticism given the opportunity, yet never offer up their own Count. In my view, there is no such thing as a Count being 'wrong' with out an accompanying explanation for which Count is 'right.' Write that also.
The second Counter Argument requires a bit of creativity and the needed additional flexibility provided by the Beaty Method. Due to this aspect, it is unlikely anyone else would propose this count, which necessarily imploys a Candle Stick Measurement to Section M2, justifying *the consideration* of a Flat Correction. In my estimation, this would be the best Non-Triangle explanation for the historical Price action on the LTCBTC Ratio. To be specific, the market would have to have just completed (as opposed to 'being in') a 'B Failure' Flat Correction, which ends in a lower degree Terminally Impulsive Wave C. Similarly, the implications of 'what come next' are even more bullish: a FULL retrace of the supposed eXtended third wave Terminal Impulse, but here within (technically) 25-50% of the time that (new) Segment M3 took to form. So, yet another, more bullish outlook than coming Wave D of a Contracting Triangle. But guess what, this Count is also incorrect. In the following Chart, I explain why:
<
-As always, all detail and annotation are of significance. In short, the supposed B Failure Flat is only made possible by a reimagining of the end of (former) Section M2. In doing so, the little support a Flat interpretation had going for it is thrown out with the bath water of the supposed later end of the Segment. Note: Do not be fooled into conflating this with how the Time of a Pattern is characteristically impacted by a *lower Degree* Terminal Impulses' overextension of a trend. For instance, a Terminal C Wave vs a C Wave *ending in a Terminal.
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Horizontal, Contracting Triangle:
Over the years I have spoken at length about *how to read the book (bleh). A common hurdle many beginners have is in the lack of understanding and recognition that, while every part is important, cherry picking any piece of the puzzle and putting it on a pedastol is an exercize that will inevitably lead you to failure. The 'matter of fact' tone that is used throughout is part of the game of appreciating that there is Truth in seemingly contradictory concepts, and thus, to take any one part as gospel as you read through the book will result in all of the hair on your head being pulled out. Conversely, grasping the real significance of any individual part necessarily requires the ability to read for both Subtext *and Context. To be on the offensive for one particular excerpt that the beginner might misinterpret as being in support of this count being wrong, I will quote it here and explain what is likely meant, and if it is not, what should be meant (yes, as the greatest to ever live, my explanation is more important).
The following can be found in Chapter 11 under the heading Contracting Triangles, Sub-headings a. Horizontal, Wave B:
"If wave-b is smaller in price than wave-a, then all the other patterns must be smaller than the previous segment (From Left to Right). If wave-b is bigger than wave-a, the chances are very small (but do exist), that wave-c might be slightly larger than wave-b and still maintain the Contracting Triangle formation. If the c-wave is larger than wave-b, it is mandatory that wave-d be smaller than wave-c or else you are entering the Expanding Triangle realm and should move to that section. In other words, in this type of Triangle, once one segment is smaller in price than the last, all the rest must be smaller than the previous. If this is not the case, the market is not in a Contracting Horizontal Triangle. Maybe it is in some other type of Triangle. Note: Wave-b should not be less than 38.2% or more than 261.8% of wave-a. There may be exceptions to the foregoing guidelines, but they are rare, so be careful about ignoring them."
In this instance, the key is found not just in the subtext, but also context, on many different levels. Context in terms of the paragraph it is in, as well as the entire section describing how each leg of a Triangle may differ (Wave by Wave and according to each Type of Triangle), but most importantly, in terms of how it applies to my analysis of the LTCBTC Ratio. After disecting what is being said in the above excerpt, AND what is being said without being said, I will dig into how the larger section applies to the LTCBTC Ratio.
A common theme in all of my analysis, and I would argue, in the book as well, is that Internal measurement is vastly more important than External. As I have layed out, there is value in viewing the measurement of a Retracement as being in its' own seperate category from the two prior concepts. In the case of Triangles, both of the following ideas emphatically hold true:
a. Internal measurement rules the Price Relativity of waves.
b. Retracement is the tool most relevant with regard to a need to compare Adjacent waves in accordance with the objective implied by its' nomenclature.
Finally, there is one more 'phrase' needed to complete the point: 'For the purpose of Channeling.' In order to properly understand both the 'contracting' excerpt (hint), as well as the larger section, internalizing the above perspective is essential.
Now, I will break down the excerpt bit by bit, providing the subtext and context:
"If wave-b is smaller in price than wave-a, then all the other patterns must be smaller than the previous segment (From Left to Right)."
-Do not fall into the trap of believing an impression about how a given section of a chart might 'look' or seem: Absent an understanding of precisely what it is you are even *looking for*, your thoughts, feelings, and/or perception in the matter are irrelevant. In the context of the LTCBTC Ratio, Wave B is by far the biggest wave at a ~515% change in price. It is easily bigger than Wave C, thus, the above quoted sentence is not applicable.
"If wave-b is bigger than wave-a, the chances are very small (but do exist), that wave-c might be slightly larger than wave-b and still maintain the Contracting Triangle formation."
-As we will eventually get to: despite the fact that Wave C is smaller than Wave B, it is actually the largest leg of the Triangle. In case you haven't listened to any of my past lectures, the word largest implies a Wave is both the biggest *and the longest. And yes: it will maintain its' Contracting Triangle formation. Patience will be required to understand the above paragraph, rest assured, I did not misspeak.
"If the c-wave is larger than wave-b, it is mandatory that wave-d be smaller than wave-c or else you are entering the Expanding Triangle realm and should move to that section."
-As far as the LTCBTC Ratio is concerned, Wave D will indeed be smaller than Wave C, even after the coming rally in prices, so long as it is correctly measured. Contextually, the task at hand is ruling out an Expanding Triangle Classification. To farther accomplish this task, the relevant, Price-relative, measurement of Wave C in relation to Wave B falls underneath the umbrella of finding the biggest wave of a Triangle: the mere happenstance of adjacency to Wave B, is equally important as Wave B's adjacency to Wave A, entirely unimportant to the scope of the above. Given the biggest leg of a Contracting Triangle is known, so long as Wave C (or any wave subsequent to the biggest wave) does not improperly alter the convergence of channel lines--there is zero marginal importance (with regard to LTCBTC or in any other equivalant scenario for that matter).
"In other words, in this type of Triangle, once one segment is smaller in price than the last, all the rest must be smaller than the previous."
-Yes, as for the LTCBTC Ratio, the first Segment that is smaller in price than the previous is Wave C, each subsequent leg will indeed be smaller thereafter: Wave B is bigger than Wave A, Wave C is smaller than Wave B, the final two waves each will be smaller than the prior.
Each of my responses might seem odd, and perhaps, to the unitiated, contradictory, but as you will see they most cetainly are not. Not only are they technically correct, but correct in the spirit of what is true about Triangles and how juan should approach them. Let me explain: First off, as I have always maintained, regarding the Price Relativity of waves: Internal measurement is most important. It seeks to answer the question: "How do I evaluate and compare the size of waves?" In Triangles, the most relevant application is in comparing Waves A, C, and E with each other, and similarly, Waves B and D. Now it becomes important to understand the context.
Take a step back and think about the quoted excerpt. Explicitly, there is an exploring of a scenario where Wave B is bigger than Wave A, and a farther exploring given the condition that Wave C is bigger than Wave B. And what is this all in reference to? Nuance about the legs of a Triangle (in this case a Horizontal) within the Realm of Contracting Triangles. Consider that Wave D can not be the largest leg of any Triangle. Inherent in the prior statement is that Wave D also can not be the biggest leg of any Triangle (a truth that exists in terms of any measurement approach). What am I getting at? I am getting at the fact, that the biggest wave of any Contracting Triangle must be one of the first three waves (A, B, or C). So, in other words, the excerpt revolves around contemplating the biggest leg of a Triangle, and how, in turn, it might affect the rest of a Triangles' formation. Inherent to such a contemplation is the question: "How is the Price-Relative size of waves compared?"
Now, in the name of progressing towards a point: Let us consider both the wider Contracting Triangle Heading, and, the more narrow idea of a Converging (contracting) Manifestation of waves (getting smaller moving from left to right) the context becomes: "How do we compare the Price-Relative size of waves?" ... "For the purpose of Channeling?"
Understand?! Pragmatically the point is a question necessarily made up of two component parts.
With the appropriate context, we can now decipher the subtext that is actually put forth in the following excerpt sentences:
"If the c-wave is larger than wave-b, it is mandatory that wave-d be smaller than wave-c or else you are entering the Expanding Triangle realm and should move to that section."
"In other words, in this type of Triangle, once one segment is smaller in price than the last, all the rest must be smaller than the previous."
-With new eyes, and the decoded subtext provided above, ask yourself: how exactly should a Contracting Triangles' characteristics be evaluated? The answer is easy: First, determine the biggest (Price-relative) wave internally amongst Waves A, B, and C. Second, determine whether or not the remaining waves unfold on a 'contracting basis' *for the purposes of Channeling.*
Put differently: The goal is to verify and validate the existence of converging, opposing Channel lines, and finding a Triangle's biggest wave happens to be a prerequisite. Naturally, at least for the skilled, a comparison of the (Price) relative size of waves is done internally, yet the subsequent verification and validation has *no contemplation* involving an Internally or Externally focused measurement approach. In fact, in this instance, a quantifiable measurement is not even necessary beyond the ability to conclude a Convergence of Channel lines. Drink that in. It plays a vital *part in understanding: Wave C is the Largest wave of the Triangle (on the LTCBTC Ratio (For all intensive purposes)), how that is true, and why it is important that it is true.
Thus far, it is perhaps apparent that the following is notably missing from the specific excerpt and my accompanying comments: a differentiation between 'how each of the three Types of Contracting Triangles channel.' This will be needed in order to properly discuss Waves B and C of the LTCBTC Ratio Triangle. It is not by accident that I have *not completely detailed how each 'Type of Triangle channels,' nor is it's early absence within the Contracting Triangle section of the book (which contains the earlier excerpt).
The early omission of 'how a Horizontal Triangle channels,' is, eventually, indirectly defined. That is to say, we ARE told 'how the other Types of triangles channel' directly(ish in the case of an Irregular Triangle) under the subsequent Triangle Type Headings. What is said, yet left unsaid, is that a Horizontal Triangle is in essence, the broader category of a Contracting Triangle, but defined by categorical negation: A Horizontal Triangle is a Contracting Triangle that is neither an Irregular, nor a Running, Triangle.
Since the purpose of this post is not to cover a book, yet its' relevance in informing the historical Elliot Wave Count of the LTCBTC Ratio does eXtend a bit farther and further to the larger Contracting Triangle Section, I will highlight a few remaining, applicable concepts amidst adding a bit of my own spice to it all. Going forward, the overarching conclusion I will be establishing is that 'Channeling' is the primary differentiating attribute with respect to each Triangle Type.
This conclusion is both directly and indirectly supported by the larger section about Contracting Triangles. Directly, this is fairly obvious in the Classification of a Running Triangle: the 'Terminus' of Waves B and D...For the purposes of channeling...Set this type of Triangle apart from the rest. Due to the potential size of Wave B, which must be the largest leg of the triangle, coupled with the atypical (pattern-unique) minimum retracement needed for Wave D, the converging Channel lines in a Running distinctly form an ascending or descending 'bent.' It should not be controversial to state that the LTCBTC Ratio is indisputably *not in a Running Triangle: both the 12 month time-span taken by Wave B (m2), as well as Wave C's (m3) status as the largest leg make any consideration of the pattern a non-starter. Again, we are talking about the historical chart, and you can refer to the earlier chart I provided to map the labels shown in paranthesis.
To be clear: the word 'Retracement' is explicitly mentioned on numerous occasions throughout this section, and, is the otherwise implied form of measurement for the vast majority of the time. In order to fulfill the sections' purpose of Classifying each Type of Triangle by stipulating the acceptable manners by which their Channel lines Converge, the concept of a Retracement is appropriately used.
The significance of my hammering the above into your head, is to help explain how Channeling subtly classifies an Irregular Triangle: An Irregular Triangle is 'characterised by it's B Wave.' To farther paraphrase: Wave B *must be bigger than Wave A in Price, and rarely will be shorter in Time. Under the Wave A sub-heading of the larger degree Irregular Triangle sub-heading, we are told that Wave B should not be 'much more than 161.8%' of Wave A, do not be fooled by the use of a % sign: Just like ALL of the books' other *Wave Type distinguishing* Wave B (Price) measurements, Retracement is strictly used. Logically, this makes perfect sense, as the aim is to consider how much ground an adjacent wave covered in terms of the prior wave (Wave A).
While the Irregular Triangle sub-section does not directly state this (more later): it is *required* in an Irregular that the Base-line begin from 'above' the start of Wave A, which Typifies the Pattern. Admittedly, the above can occur in each of the other Two Types, yet they *musn't (while the author of this post has never personally witnessed it, in theory, its' *absence could even occur in a Running Triangle: Wave B would still need the requisite *internal size and the Pattern would have to not be explained by any other Classification). To farther unravel this thread, similarly, it is the extent of Retracement achieved by Waves C (as compared to a Horizontal Triangle) and D (as compared to a Running Triangle) which *differentiate how this pattern Channels.
For those who would doubt my above assertion, and to transition from that particular Contracting Triangle Section to my final comments on the book, a farther corroboration of just what exactly it is about Wave B that 'characterizes' an Irregular Triangle can be found in Chapter 10-8 (Advanced Logic Rules) under the heading "I. Limiting" and directly found under the sub-heading "b. Irregular:"
"Since the b-wave in one of these patterns exceeds the end of wave-a, it implies the pattern is more powerful than a Horizontal (in either price direction). The thrust out of this variation can be as much as 161.8% of the widest leg of the Triangle."
Note: The word "end" necessarily refers to 'an end' (as in one of two ends of a given wave) in this case unironically being the *start of Wave A: Since it would literally be impossible for Wave B (contextually: the conclusion of Wave B in an Irregular Triangle) to exceed the 'end end' of Wave A (as they are Counter Directionally Trending to each other), it is easy to determine the word should be taken to mean start. The 'end end' of Wave A also serves as the beginning of Wave B, thus the 'end end' of Wave B could not exceed it's own begining, outside the context of a Negative Retracement. I award you no points, may god have mercy on your soul.
The LTCBTC Ratio is in an 'Abnormal,' Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle:
From any angle you care to look at it, the LTCBTC Ratio is in an 'Abnormal' Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle. The goal of this post was to touch on each of the following conclusions and how they were formed:
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in another Type of Correction: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Contracting Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in an Expanding Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Horizontal Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in a Running or Irregular Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Abnormal Triangle: Let's do it
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in a 'Normal' Triangle: Baby
The Wave Type is widdled down ('chizzled down,' 'chipped away at,' 'narrowed down' Not: 'I'm a widdle baby who can't count waves') from the broadest of categories. Most (who are not me) gloss over this Pattern in the good book, it does not draw much attention, but it is there, and is also, additionly, spoken about by way of implication (hint). There is a specific criteria needed to be met in order for a Triangle to be considered 'Abnormal.' Anyway, what makes a triangle Abnormal is really, above all, (you guessed it) the manner by which it Channels. The criteria that must be met helps contribute to this differentiation. Is it starting to click?
'Similar' to the Classification process of all other Contracting Triangles, first, the *largest Leg of the Triangle must be determined (here, yes the biggest leg, but additionally the longest, explicitly said to be 'the largest'). Again, sure, as a type of Contracting Triangle there is inherently a subsequent verification and validation of Converging Channel lines. Also again, the manner by which these Channel lines Converge differentiates the Classification! Also, again, this is not explicitly said, yet it is still equally as true. Farther, again, 'Retracement *Levels' are, similarly, used in pursuit of differentiating 'how the Pattern Channels.' Here, my use of the term 'Retracement Level' is a bit of a misnomer (sorta kinda) in that the aim is not truly to measure how much 'ground' was lost or retraced. Yet, the meaning of the term as far as it's logic is well understood, even outside the world of Elliot Wave. In this case, though, the true differentiating factor in Classification is, totally unambiguous: Channeling.
I didn't say there was no subtext, I said it was unambiguous: The Pattern is differentiated by 'how it Channels'. Oh, and if you don't believe me about any of this, refer to Chapter 12 in "Mastering Elliot Wave" Advanced Neely Extensions 12-17 and check out the three diagrams which illustrate the different ways a Contracting Triangle 'Contra Base line' can be imployed. Tell me, just exactly what Type of Triangle is Diagram B?! Prease, do tell. Also, prease do tell: Are you sure Wave B MUST be bigger than Wave A--in order for Wave C to be bigger than B?
Anyway, in an Abnormal Contracting, Wave E must conclude outside of '61.8% of the longest Wave of the Triangle, centered in the largest wave' ...do not be fooled by the use of a % sign frens (as opposed to a fraction): it is not relevant. Basically, in this Type of Triangle, one of the two other (abnormal) 'Contra Base-lines' will be imployed depending upon the Terminus of the larger of Waves A and C. Really, as funny as it might sound, part of the prior statement should, in truth, be ammended to: 'Depending upon the Terminus of Waves A and C, for the purpose of Channeling (the closer in Price to Wave E), which ultimately dictates the larger of the two waves.' I say this because, despite the reality that most of the time both trains of thought will agree as to which wave is the largest (in this case), 'disagreements' are possible. Compare this manner of Channeling with that of a 'Normal Triangle,' where the (normal) A-C 'Contra Base-line will be imployed and it all starts to make sense.
How to measure the Biggest, Longest, and Largest Leg in a Triangle and Chart Scaling:
So, to put a period on it: Wave C is the largest leg of the Contracting Triangle on the LTCBTC Ratio. It is the largest because it is both the longest in Time and the biggest in Price (for the purpose of Channeling). Yes, there are two biggest Waves depending on what the precise aim is, which determines how it should be accomplished...for the purpose of Channeling. Wave B is the Price-Relative biggest wave (measured Internally). Yes, I am aware this is a prerequisite step towards determining the biggest Leg of a Contracting Triangle, for the purpose of Channeling. Guess what: *How the biggest or largest leg of a Triangle is determined, depends on 'how a given **Type** of Triangle Channels.'
Hands down, for the purpose of Channeling, Wave C is the biggest wave, above all, due to 'how an Abnormal, Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle Channels.' 'How an Abnormal, Horizontal Contracting Triangle Channels' is necessarily informed by the fact that it is, more broadly, a Contracting Triangle, thus it is, in a sense, indirectly informed by the fact that Wave B is the biggest wave (as far as the Price-Relativity of Waves goes).
There are at least three good reasons that, ultimately, again, Wave C is the biggest leg of the LTCBTC Triangle:
1. Time: Every Triangle must have a largest leg, and part of that, is that this leg must be, at least from a certain angle, also considered the biggest leg. So, since Wave C is the longest Time-wise, it would be tough to make a case for any of the other three waves being the largest wave, especially when you consider the next two reasons.
2. Wave Type: Wave C is a Triple Zig Zag, a Pattern which must be the largest wave of *any larger Pattern, including a Triangle. If Wave C must be the largest wave...this also dictates that it is the biggest wave, as the largest wave is *both the biggest (Price-wise) and the longest (Time-wise).
3. Channeling: MOST IMPORTANTLY, Wave C is biggest Leg...for the purpose of Channeling. Well, akshually, in this case, it is the largest leg...for the purpose of Channeling, which dictates that it is also the biggest leg. Channeling is what differentiates each Type of Triangle, have I mentioned this? In an Abnormal, Horizontal, Contracting Triangle, the manner by which Converging Channel lines are different, is that the 'Contra Base-line' will connect either Wave A or Wave C to Wave E, depending upon which Terminus is closer in Price to the Terminus of Wave E (appearance-wise this will usually take the form of a 'flatter' Contra Base-line than that of a Normal Triangle). Since Time is arguably of a bit more importance in how an Abnormal, Contracting channels, here it is the largest wave that dictates the biggest wave (in theory but in my view not in practice)...for the purpose of Channeling. Inherent to this Logic is the assumption that Time plays a relatively bigger role (because otherwise the biggest wave would be used) in influencing the likelihood that the bigger of Waves A or C (yes) will Cleanly connect to Wave E. Put differently: There is a bigger weight on the 'degree of Non-Directionality' of a Wave, necessarily anticipating its' effect on the bigger of the two waves Cleanly connecting to Wave E. Mkay?
Lost on the vast majority of readers, is the understanding that there is 'Logic' at play. If you wish to understand the book, or what I have been laying out in this post, you must drop what you think a word 'means.' The same word or term can have different meanings in different contexts. To be clear: I am not refering to the reality that different people will always, *to some extent*, have their own interpretation of what something means, but rather, how an author can intentionally and justifiably use the same word in different contexts 'differently.' For example, compare the following two sentences: Bob is a Lawyer, he 'practices' Law. After work, he 'practices' basketball. The example is not perfect, but it gets the point across: the word 'practice' is not misused, it has a very different meaning depending upon the context, yet there is a general consensus as to how the words' meaning changes in each case. And no, in the prior sentence, I do not mean 'case' as in a Law case, you, the reader, obviously know this by taking the context of the sentence into account (not a thing with a balance, okay you get it). Not only is this idea true of everyday language, but it is of extreme importance when reading for subtext. In the book, Terms are defined using a specific Logic, yet language is amviguous, when there is a conflict or contradiction between the two, it is the established hierarchy of Logic that rules.
Anyway, akshually, if arguing over the biggest Leg of a Triangle--without any regard as to *why it matters--is your goal, sure, I'll play: There is an argument to be made that each of the first three legs are the biggest Leg, each in their own way. Wave C is the biggest leg for all three of the reasons listed earlier. Wave B is the biggest leg Internally. As it would happen, Wave A is the biggest leg on a Raw, total change in Price basis, the others are nowhere near as close! So why is Wave A not the biggest wave for any relevant reason? That is easy, it is the same reason that Log Scale should be used on the chart: Any market Pair that has (or is expected to) experience explosive growth in Prices should be analysed accordingly. In other words, in these markets, absent this scaling, there is no way to appropriately compare past, current, and future price movements on a *relative basis. On a Linear Chart, the most recent explosive move dwarfs any past moves distorting the Frame or 'Field of View,' history is made to be entirely irrelevant, when it is, obviously, relevant. On a similar note, using the Raw change in Price of a wave as opposed to the percentage change, distorts the 'relativity' of moves: Again, Wave A using the Raw change in Price presents the data as if the following 515% rally as well as subsequent 91% decrease in Price were of little to no significance. Ask someone who used Bitcoin to buy Litecoin before the rally, and sold anywhere in the viscinity of the top if there nearly 5x the amount of Bitcoin is of no significance. Similarly, ask the other person who did the same thing prior to the subsequent drop, if the 1/10 amount of Bitcoin they now have is of no significance. Not only are these moves of great significance in any analysis, but they are actually of more signifcance, slightly so in the case of Wave C. That is all irrespective of Elliot Wave.
No matter what approach is used in all of this stuff, there will always be tradeoffs. In charting the LTCBTC Ratio (or any coins paired against each other), Elliot Wave or not, using the Raw changes in Price will wildly distort your impression of the data, and what it means. The decision to use Log Scale goes hand in hand with using % measurement over Raw data, the only difference being that one has an effect on how given, chosen data is measured and the other has an effect on the presentation of the larger data set. It is the same mindset that recognizes the severe disadvantage in both Raw change in Price measurement and Linear Scaling of an exponentially growing market.
Conclusion: The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in a 'Normal' Triangle:
Due to Terminus of the largest leg of what will be a Contracting, Horizontal Triangle, the Contra Base-line will necessarily have to be a 'C-E Line.' The Terminus of Wave A can not be used in a 'Normal' Contracting Triangle! To do so would create a descending Contra Base-line. Thus, by way of negation, it can actually be concluded that the LTCBTC Ratio is in an Abnormal, Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle. Using this technique, such a conclusion can actually be made before the Triangle is complete. This creates a rare opportunity in that, usually, this can not be done reliably in an Expanding Triangle (their Classification must be done 'after the fact'). There is also relatively more predictive value than any other Contracting Triangle in that we can already deduce a reasonable estimate for the size of Wave E subsequent to the coming Wave D rally:
-Wave E must touch the Line created by connecting Wave C with the M4 Interim Low.
-Since Wave A can not be the smallest leg of any Contracting Triangle, Wave E must be smaller than Wave A.
-Wave E will likely relate to Waves A and/or C in Price and/or Time by a Fibonacci Ratio. While this is not unique to an Abnormal, it is of more significance due to the nature of Wave E in an Abnormal, as well as this one in particular.
Wave E aside, we know that the coming rally must not only make new highs sufficient to create a Clean Base-line, but farther it must achieve, at a minimum, a .382 Retracement of the prior leg, on the LTCBTC Ratio that is a BIG move:
<
-Wave C Retracement Levels
Not much unlike the failure to understand *what a Count means* by Ellioticians, is the inability, more generally, of analysts to properly put a move into perspective. The above context of the move is on a coin's (Litecoin) Price *against Bitcoin*, in what is the precipice of the largest bull market in the history of Bitcoin:
< >
The coming Wave D rally is, in it of itself, a big deal. In terms of what the larger Abnormal Triangle suggests about the big picture, there is a lot to be gleemed here as well. The Contracting Horizontal 'status' alone, already provides a minimum, longer term, upside projection in that the larger Degree 'move to follow' must take LTCBTC to new ATHs (the price must exceed the *begining* of Wave A). The prior statement is true regardless of the Triangles' Categorization as Limiting or Non Limiting. With that said, the Classification of an Abnormal suggests the Triangle is actually a Non Limiting Triangle (in terms of what the Wave Type in it of itself implies).
As it would happen, there is indeed a larger Count such a Triangle would fit into. It is a Count that I have spoken about in the past. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't say much more, it won't be easy. Good luck.
