Hi
Interesting,
what is the relation between the waves in January 4’s article and those now? for me, there is a gap in your analysis.
how did you get the price of 75$ where wave 1 was about 3$ only…
Boaz
Boaz, good question. (1) go back to the first chart of Jan 4 article and you will see hat wave 4 within the extended fifth comes at $74 (2) wave 1 of the downmove that went from 102.22 to 97.70 or so is just the 1st wave of wave A of a larger ABC. Hence it looks relatively small.
4 Comments
Hi
Interesting,
what is the relation between the waves in January 4’s article and those now? for me, there is a gap in your analysis.
how did you get the price of 75$ where wave 1 was about 3$ only…
Boaz
Boaz, good question. (1) go back to the first chart of Jan 4 article and you will see hat wave 4 within the extended fifth comes at $74 (2) wave 1 of the downmove that went from 102.22 to 97.70 or so is just the 1st wave of wave A of a larger ABC. Hence it looks relatively small.
Dear Ramki,
Given the triangle formation – shouldnt we think it is more likely to be a B than a 2?
Best regards,
BJ
BJ, Anything is possible. But if we are looking for an eventual decline to $74, then it is convenient to assume this is wave 2 of A