A historical timing pattern in #Bitcoin cycles is getting attention again. • Dec 2017 ATH → ~395 Days → Jan 2019 Bottom • Nov 2021 ATH → ~395 Days → Dec 2022 Bottom If the same structure repeats: • Oct 2025 ATH → ~395 Days → Possible Bottom Around Nov 2026 Bitcoin markets often follow cyclical timing patterns driven by liquidity, sentiment, and macro conditions. While no pattern guarantees the future, many traders are watching this timeline closely as a potential window for the next cycle bottom. $BTC Catch the move 👇🏻
⚠️ JUST IN: 🇺🇸 The Federal Reserve says most participants saw another 2026 rate hike as likely appropriate.
😟🚨 FED MINUTES SEND A WARNING
The September Fed minutes reveal that most Fed officials are still leaning toward another rate hike before year-end.
Even more concerning: all 19 officials backed the September rate hike, showing strong agreement on keeping monetary policy tight.
And inflation remains the biggest threat. Almost every official sees inflation risks tilted to the upside, with some warning that the AI boom could drive demand far beyond supply — potentially creating another wave of inflation pressure.
With the aggressive selloff we’ve just seen, BTC has not only lost our key support level at $85k but also broken the short-term uptrend, shifting momentum back in favor of sellers.
Now that the Friday low has been swept and price is currently finding some sort of short-term support around the monthly open, we could still see a bounce from here.
If that bounce brings price back into the grey zone, I’d consider it a great short opportunity, especially now that our previous support could start acting as resistance.
However, if bearish momentum remains this strong, I wouldn’t be surprised if BTC simply continues lower without giving us a proper retest first.
Futures CVD has continued to move lower while open interest has been building up.
This suggests that whenever BTC has pushed into the range highs, perps have stepped in, aggressively increasing the selling pressure.
However, none of these rejections were significant enough to push price back below $85k.
Instead, price always found support around this level and quickly pushed back up towards the highs.
With more shorts continuing to enter the market, they could quickly get squeezed if buyers keep absorbing this selling pressure, potentially fueling another move into the highs or even above them.
$85k therefore remains the line in the sand for me. As long as buyers manage to defend this area, a break above $87k becomes increasingly likely.
A reversal is not a trade entry. The confirmation is what gives the setup its strength.
On this chart, price has formed three lower-high reversals along a descending trendline. The big question is: Will price finally break that structure and confirm a potential shift?
Trade confirmation is the price action that gives traders additional evidence that a setup may be developing before entering a position.
Here, the market initially shows bearish structure:
Lower High → Lower High → Lower High
Each reversal shows sellers defending lower levels, keeping the descending structure intact.
The third reversal is particularly important because it tests the same descending resistance area again.
A trader should avoid assuming that the third reversal automatically means the trend has changed. Instead, they can watch for confirmation such as:
🔸A decisive break above the descending trendline. 🔸A strong candle close above the structure. 🔸A subsequent higher high or higher low. 🔸Retest and rejection of the broken resistance as support.
Don't trade the prediction—trade the confirmation. The three reversals show where sellers previously stepped in. If buyers can break and hold above that descending structure, it provides stronger evidence that bearish momentum may be weakening.
But if price rejects the trendline again and creates another lower high, the bearish structure may still be valid.
The key is to let price action confirm the idea before committing to the setup.
If you were watching this chart, would you enter immediately at the third reversal—or wait for a confirmed breakout and retest?
A trader with a 40% win rate can outperform a trader with a 70% win rate. Most people hear that and assume it's a trick. It isn't.
Win rate answers one question: how often are you right. It says nothing about the only question that actually determines whether an account grows, which is how much gets made when you're right versus how much gets lost when you're wrong.
A 70% win rate built on taking small, nervous profits and letting losses run will bleed an account slowly, one string of good-looking green months followed by one red month that erases all of them. A 40% win rate built on cutting losses fast and letting winners run can be wildly profitable, because the math only needs three good trades to outweigh seven small ones.
This is why watching someone's win rate in isolation tells you almost nothing about whether they're a good trader. Two traders can both be right 60% of the time and have completely opposite outcomes, because one of them is right small and wrong big, and the other is right big and wrong small.
The number that actually matters is expectancy. Average win, multiplied by win rate, minus average loss, multiplied by loss rate. That single number tells you what a strategy is worth over a hundred trades. Win rate alone doesn't even get close.
Image: A trading sheet where a trader had a clean run of profitable trades, only for one trade to wipe out a large part of those gains.
Stop asking how often you're right. Start asking what being right is actually worth.