Crystal ball answer style:
the gap may fill, and maybe not ... it's always like "Schroedingers gap" - both is possible, as long as you don't open the box - afterwards the answer is always easy
Psychological answer style:
if everybody see's the obviously inavoidable event coming, then it's avoidable and will not happen ... because the supporters of the event get a little lazy and the counterparts even more encouraged to work harder! See several past "suprising" worldwide elections and votes (US, Malaysia, pro/con Brexit voting - stone throwing on me for saying this starts in 3,2,1 ... Go!)
Possibility & probability style answer:
1) Assumption: Fibonacci Retracements are probable turning and target-points
Scenario 1a) "Traders Cheat Sheet" copied from barchart (let other people think)
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
1
2.586
38.2% Retracement From 13 Week High
2
2.471
50% Retracement From 13 Week High/Low
3
2.356
38.2% Retracement From 13 Week Low
4
2.307
38.2% Retracement From 52 Week High
5
2.265
38.2% Retracement From 4 Week High
6
2.211
50% Retracement From 4 Week High/Low
7
2.157
38.2% Retracement From 4 Week Low
8
Last
2.140
Last
9
2.105
50% Retracement From 52 Week High/Low
10
1.903
38.2% Retracement From 52 Week Low
Conclusion => 1,89 possible as an overshooting beyond 52w low retracement
Scenario 1b) low-2-high retracements method
Low 0,33 (June 2015)
High 2,96 (July 2018)
Retracements:
23,6% = 2,34 (does somebody remember this level? 2,30-2,40 was a real fighting range in the last month)
38,2% = 1,96 (was 1,98 close enough? Was buying pressure to high to fulfill 1,96? ... if yes = downswing done, next wave up & no gap close)
50% = 1,65 (1,89 gap close possibe,if price drops to that mark, but target is less probable than 38,2%)
Conclusion =>
- if "almost" 38,2% ret. was enough (even if 1,96 wasn't hit), 1,89 gap won't fill
- if the 1,90ties will be reapproached, because 1,98 was not enough, the 1,89 is not far away
Scenario 2) If Elliott was right and after an impulse wave a correction wave follows ...
Assumption 2.1: 2,96 was the end of an impulsive upmove
Assumption 2.2: we have a simple ABC zig-zag here (criteria for a flat or other possible corrective waves either not fulfilled or probability actually too low)
A: 2,96 to 2,12
B: 2,12 to 2,59 (55% of A)
C: 2,59 to 1,98? (= 72% of A ... should be min. 61,8% if short legged = possible ... and can be 168,2% of A if leg is extended =1,23 ... still possible, but way less probable)
But zigzag are not often short or extended, but then more or less symmetrical (C=100% of A) ... 100% target: 1,75 => gap closed
Assumption 2.3: the C-wave itself is a minor "abc"-zigzag (for simplicity reasons) ...
a of C: 2,59 to 1,98
b of C: 1,98 to 2,44 (75% of previous wave, almost 76,4% = fibo retracement)
c of C (sym): 2,44 to 1,83 (c = 100% of a ... and about 90% of the wave A from 2,96 to 2,12 ... closer to 100% than most other scenarios)
Special remark: There are more complex correction options, that could fit into typical Elliott-wave-analysis. There's never just one option or that always the simplest solution is the right one. This is just a tiny, bias sighted excurs.
Conclusions:
- if correction will be a full symmetric zigzag, gap will be closed on the way to 1,75
- if wave C was not finished and is running as a minor and, then 1,83 is the target
- if the wave from 2,96 down to 1,98 is part of a bigger correction wave structure and actually a bigger wave B is still running, the 1,89 gap could (not must!) be closed in the second down-leg (wave C), after reaching typical recovery targets (like 2,35 /38,2% retracement = done, 2,44/50% ret. = done or 2,58/61,8% ret. = open or more - but with decreasing probabilities ... 2,44 was a huge resistance and is achieved, so wave C could be already runing)
- if correction is over (triggered by a significant, impulsive upmove caused by e.g. condisoil approval, peace-doves sent by the Malaysian government or incredibly good mine extension results or all 3 - forget about 1,89 gap, it won't be filled within the next year's or maybe decades.
This is my view on the gap options - other techniques and approaches may lead to another point of view and different results.
... so where's Schroedingers box? Let's open it! There are scenarios, where the gaps MAY be closed, but conclusions dealing with the future are the hardest ones and most of them don't happen
PS: If you don't understand a word of the written above and want to learn about that analysis styles, please get books about market psychology, Elliott waves and/or Fibonacci retracements. Alternatively, simply take your money to a casino and put everything on red or black ... casinos are easier to understand, with maybe the same result as to be invested here in less time - depending on your exit point
(20min delay)