/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54217565
yawn bobos have been saying this since we broke 20k. im long since 16k so these little wishful bobo dipperinos have no effect on my position

>OH NO, we're C R A S H I NG to 26k!!!
lol... lmao even

>>54217579
Nope. They haven't. They might be saying it now however, as it's first now that it's occurring. There was no "rolling over" going on at 20k or 21k or 22k or 23k or 24k or 25k or 26k. It's first now that it's happening on the chart.

>>54217595
Your boomer signals don't matter as much as the fed pivoting and bank bailouts, though.

>>54217595
mate ive literally been seeing RSIcels sound the horn every week since we started this rally.

>>54217625
You responded to OP with the claim:
> "bobos have been saying this"
in other words that BTC is rolling over on the 1D,
> "since we broke 20k."
Which is obviously false, as it's only now that it has begun to roll over. See the chart.

>>54217565

>>54217595
>>54217651
Literally pathetic. This is who we share the board with. Not that any of this even matters now that the fed is resuming QE much sooner than expected you dumb gorilla nnigger retard.

>>54217718
If you use your eyes to look at the chart you'll see that it's now that it looks like it's rolling over on the 1D. Not earlier at 20k-26k as that anon falsely claimed.

Rolling over isn't a thing and even if it was I don't care

>>54217767
>being this new
It refers to the indicator, the Stochastic RSI in this case, beginning to go down. It literally visually "rolls over" from being high up. One can also be using regular RSI and say that it is "rolling over" in the same scenario. Not something unique to Stochastic RSI.

>>54217779
Nobody uses RSI and even if they did I don't care

>>54217579
Wrong, and also plainly impossible. Who are you trying to deceive? People who never check the chart? It's obvious nobody did that. See picrel. The highlighted area is the 20k to 26k range. It hadn't begun rolling over then. So no, nobody was saying it was rolling over "since we broke 20k".

>>54217718
He's 100% correct. See picrel. The highlighted area is the 20k to 26k range. It hadn't begun rolling over then.

>>54217565
It's only just begun

>>54217718
>comparing the current situation's Daily to the Daily on January 16th, presenting it as if the situation is the same
That's the Daily. And what was the Weekly like then? Oh that's right, it looked like this. Quite contrary to now. You hoped nobody would consider the Weekly, much less post a screenshot of it. Too bad.

>>54217846
>>54218001
don't care, not reading
cope and seethe RSIcels, you'll never make it, ever ever ever

>>54218001
That's MACD

>>54218028
What he posted and I posted are both Stoch RSI.

>>54217757
>>54217846
And if you niggers use YOUR eyes, you'll see two (2) pretty little yellow highlighted circles on my chart that refutes:
>>54217651
>> "since we broke 20k."
>Which is obviously false, as it's only now that it has begun to roll over. See the chart.
As you can see with your pitch black mud eyes, the area I kindly highlighted for you is where BTC started rolling over on the 1D after BTC BROKE 20K, as the anon this post is quoting said. Not a few days ago. When BTC broke 20K. Also notice we pumped the weeks after this, despite what the gay little rsi was printing.
You may now cope, seethe, and dial 8.

>>54218001
Hey I didn't know we had any monkey soup favela anons posting tonight! I know you may be misinterpreting the posts here as everything's in English, but we were arguing the 1D when BTC broke 20k. We were not arguing the 1W whenever. Please refer to my most recent post and seethe accordingly. >>54218087 Soups getting cold! Delicia!

>>54218087
>little yellow highlighted circles
Your pic shows the Daily. Your circle on the left is January 16th (or 15-17), a completely different market situation. When your left circle area's price action occurred the Weekly was looking like this: >>54218001

When you made that screenshot, you were hoping anons wouldn't take into consideration the Weekly. You were wrong, and I exposed you.

>>54218111
>we were arguing the 1D
And you were trying to say that "Look goys, the Daily was topped and yet the price went up!" -- which is of no surprise to anyone considering the Weekly at the time.

And the original arguments made ITT was by this anon: >>54217579 who stated that bobos had been saying that "it's rolling over" ever since BTC broke 20k, which is plainly false. That anon was promptly proven totally wrong.

>>54218137
Ever since BTC BUCK BROKE 20K and BTC DIPPING to 20K are two (2) different things anon. Uma Delicia!

>>54218122
Why the fuck would I take into consideration the Weekly when I'm ONLY refuting the daily stoch was also rolling over when BTC BROKE 20k, as that smugnigger said. I'm not trying to refute some gay little tea leaves prediction, just refuting a fake and gay statement. Not that that matters as fed is printing, bobo. Thanks for playing.

>>54218166
The argument and statement was that "bobos have been claiming the Stoch RSI has been rolling over since 20k" which is plainly false.

Then you entered the thread wanting to show that the Stoch RSI can be topped and yet the price can still rise (duh), which nobody had claimed otherwise about. You pointed to the 1D on January 16th, which was a completely different market situation with a different market sentiment; as the Weekly shows.

>>54218193
You always take multiple timeframes into consideration when you want the fullest understanding of the market situation. Only the newest of newfags use Stoch RSI on the Daily in islolation without accounting for the Weekly at the same time. The Stoch RSI can in fact be completely bottomed on the Daily and fully topped on the 1W, which means the price will fall yet obviously pump first; at least a little. This duality always confuses the fuck out of newfags, which you revealed yourself to be one now when you posted "Why the fuck would I take into consideration the Weekly".

And in the current situation? Now the Daily is topped AND the Weekly has been knocked down (not in rise mode as it was on January 16th). So in other words, the market situation is extremely bearish.

>the daily stoch was also rolling over when BTC BROKE 20k
Yes and? Again, the Daily can hug 100 points during a super bullish market situation (that is; when the Weekly is also rising healthily) and has frequently done so. Which is contrary to the current situation with the Weekly being the way it is. Very different from January 16th.

>>54217718
Your pic shows Falling Volume combined with Rising Price. Very very bearish. You unintentionally provided support for OP by posting that. You forgot to turn off the volume to hide it, to make the pic look less bearish. Try remembering that next time you want to shill your personal narrative.

>>54218322
What price will it correct to before it becomes bullish again? Let me guess 14k?

>>54218322
>>54218337
The amerigolem is arguing against this statement
>There was no "rolling over" going on at 20k or 21k or 22k or 23k or 24k or 25k or 26k. It's first now that it's happening on the chart.
Which is untrue since the daily RSI did roll over in January and February

>>54217848
God a 2x would be glorious

>>54218394
The
>There was no "rolling over" going on at 20k or 21k or 22k or 23k or 24k or 25k or 26k. It's first now that it's happening on the chart.
was in response to the claim (here: >>54217579 ) that ever since BTC was at 20k, which it was on March 10-11, the bears on /biz/ have been saying that BTC is rolling over. Which they didn't. This is the first thread with any bear saying it's rolling over. Obviously. Because it's now that BTC (or rather the Stoch RSI which is what OP is referring to) has begun to roll over. Since March 10-11 (20k) up until 26k, the Stoch RSI wasn't rolling over (it was only rising), as is self-evident by looking at the chart.

>the daily RSI did roll over in January and February
The 1D Stoch RSI has rolled-over countless time before, maybe hundreds of times before, but that's not what anyone is talking about here. If you bothered to read this thread from the beginning as I did, you'll see what people have been arguing over is the claim that since 20k (March 10-11) bears were saying it was rolling over. They weren't. And why would they've said that when it was still simply rising during that time? The roll-over began on March 18-19. But now, March 20, it's more visible, it now looks more like a roll-over than on the 18th and 19th.

>>54218537
>began on March 18
Actually, looking again, that's more of a top. I don't think anyone would've looked at the chart on March 18th and seen it as rolling over. Maybe on March 19th though. Today though, March 20th, certainly.

>>54218589
If it pumps to 100 Stoch RSI points then all of this is moot though, since it will no longer look like it's rolling over. In that case the roll-over will occur later, from 100.

It's not rolling over soon, and you all will have to deal with that.

>>54218358
Hard to estimate. But when the 1W and 1D are bottomed together then you'll know. Of course it's not like they must reach 0 or even go below 10, they might not, but if they do then you'll know that's the bottom. The 1W may also fall to for example 50 points and rise from there. If it begins rising from 50 points with the 1D also rising in unison then you also know that's a very bullish situation. Not as ultra super bullish as it would be if both were below 10, but still very bullish.