search elliott


  • Google
Share/Bookmark

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

FlagCounter

  • Where From?
    free counters
Related Posts with Thumbnails

« A Vergence in the 4s UPDATED 3/20 | Main | Party Like it is 1938 »

Monday, March 23, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Virginia Jim

Ned, fully agree about symmetry. That wave 1 is too big for the size of 3 and 5...doesn't have 'the look' as EWP puts it. I'm in the camp of wave 4 ending exactly today (McHugh's Phi change in trend date is today) which is Armstrong's 392 days or 1.075 years (see "It's Just Time" page 25) from the day that the wave 4 triangle ended in QQQQs. And wave 1 down from October 11, 2008 ended on March 17, 2008. If you add to March 17, 2008 392 days you get April 16, 2009 which is Armstrong's PEI change in trend date (again, "It's Just Time" page 26). I've got a wave count in QQQQs, tons of time and price symmetry and an EW count that gets me to 4/16/09 +- 1 days as the wave 5 low. QQQQs 22.44 on 4/16/2009, very improbable. As improbable as it appears, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. At least, until April 17.

DG

Jim,

That count has some things I'd call questionable:

1. The black ii retraces more of the black i than the pink ii retraces of the pink ii. Black ii also retraces more than 61.8% of black i.

2. The black v and the black i don't seem to have any of the typical i-v relationship in time or price (I didn't measure it exactly, so if there's a price relationship, OK, but since i=v is the most common one, they at least violate that)

3. We've already retraced wave e of the expanding triangle in essentially the same amount of time it took to form, which is not how retraces of expanding triangles should work. The retrace should either fail to retrace all of wave e or it should take longer than it took wave e to form.

Tartan

DG: I am currently reading Neely's book and have recently signed up for his S&P trading service. I am a reasonable Elliott Wave analyst, and am trying to learn NeoWave - it's a bit of a struggle at the moment.

One of the issues that I have with Neely's trading service is that he does not go into much depth as to how he has arrived at his wave count.

I would be interested in your wave count. Where do you think we are? Will we still top out at 850 as Neely has been saying (although he recently retracted this comment)?

Forkoholic Serge

This is cool! Not your typical Head & Shoulders
On the "shoulders" of Mercury and the "head" of Venus?
http://forkoholic.com/images/spxVenusHss.jpg

DG

Tartan,

Yes, he kind of assumes that you've either decided to just trust that he's following the rules he's laid out in his writings or that you know those rules as well as he does and don't need further explanation.

Right now, my count off the bottom is double zigzag (with a running flat for an x-wave), x-wave, and now in a triangle (in the c wave of it, which has already met it's minimum size requirement) that should end the move. Going up a degree, I don't know if we're in an A wave of that final correction or still in the x-wave (making a b wave of a flat). So, yeah, I can see us topping out about where he was looking because this triangle has already gone about as far as it needs to go. From not to much higher, we would then correct, either in the B wave of a possible triangle or the c wave of a flat to end the x-wave.

Of course, the next updates to the count could be something more fundamental, but I know that Neely likes to keep his changes to a minimum when a count has been working.

Virginia Jim

Let's reconcile EW with two very important, in my opinion, change in trend dates.

First, As I previously mentioned, McHugh has March 26 (yesterday) as a Phi change in trend date. Whatever anyone's opinion regarding McHugh, his Phi dates have been excellent. And yesterday was 1.075 years or 392 days from the beginnining of wave 5 in the first wave of this bear from October 2007. 1.075 years is Martin Armstrongs subdivision of his 8.6 year cycle (see "Its Just Time" page 26 October 2008 available online). So, we have a change in trend yesterday. High or low yesterday? I'd say it was a high. The wave 2 enthusiasts would say a correction will occur but won't break the upper channel trendline of the previously completed wave (about 780 just eyeballing it).

Second, April 16, 2009 is Armstrong's major change in trend (not an 8.6 year cycle but a 1.075 year subdivision). Will it be a high or low? I recall Armstrong, in his October 2008 essay, speculated it would be a "reactionary high" but I cannot find the quote. Regardless, the March 26 high with a major CIT speculated as forthcoming begs the question of whether wave 5 is only just beginning. That's my amateur, and extreme minority view.

Jim

PL

The trouble with spending too much time and effort looking for a change in trend (CIT) is that although by definition a CIT could be a high or a low, it could also be a change to a sideways move or an acceleration in a move in the same direction.

Not sure you could really argue that sort of information is overly helpful to trading.

PL

Mamma Boom Boom

Jim,

I'm trying to keep my view simple. I 'assume' we are in a multi-month rally (my indicators tell me that). But, I have yet to trully identify a (1), unles it is still unfolding, obviously. IMO, there is no (2), as you said.

In the back of my mind, I want to be certain that this leg is not an (A). That's the present dilemma. 'Time' will make that perfectly clear. But time can steal your money, right?

Ned

Upstart

Serge, that is pretty cool.

Upstart

Yesterday's high made the March rally just a few more DOW points than the March,'08 to May,'08 rally, or only 40 points less than the rally from January to May,'08.

The comments to this entry are closed.