X Wave Drawing to a Close

What hath today wrought?  Not much, actually.  While we got a market melt up, not a melt down, the STU sees it as the near completion of their X wave, breaking as a flat (335).  Watch Dow 8400 for an indication of something else going on.  Otherwise expect the market to fade off today's close or a slight pop higher, then head below Dow8K.  The Naz may crest 1800, filling a gap around 1796, but should then reverse.  Meanwhile the USD in the DX still bounces within an ever tighter range as the triangle fourth wave nears its end.  Expect a sharp drop shortly - maybe around the time the Dow bottoms and starts the Final Surge. 

Comments

[vipul garg]

iota,
in general 913 should not be exceeded.give or take a few.
anyone shorting on strength now or later or higher will have to keep a stop of 932 ,and sit tight.

[THE LUNAR CYCLE GUY]

July 13 is 9 days before the June 22 total Solar Eclipse

This is roughly 70% of the lunar cycle. (29.5 days-9 days)/(29.5)=.69

If you look at the below chart of the SPX..... x-waves, b-waves and other bull trap phenomena often occur on average at the 74% part of the lunar cycle...

Chart
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/3933/moonphasesiq6.jpg

74% occurs at 7.7 days before the July 22 Eclipse which may hit sometime around the Manhattan high tides on July 14 (either 12:40am or 1:30pm eastern time)

Looking for the market to fade off quickly from the July 13 highs and confirm the x-wave.

[Forkoholic Serge]

>Expect a sharp drop shortly - maybe around the time the Dow bottoms and starts the Final Surge.

after rain on Thirsday sounds good ;-)

[Al from Oz]

Hey Lunar Cycle Guy your stuff is ineresting. Prior to '98 the Aussie /USD pair was tied to a particular lunar cycle until too many people worked it out. Think it was new moon. If you have the data scroll back and overlay new moon dates and you will see it peak on every new moon. New Moon is least obvious.
Cheers
Al

[Papillon]

Maybe this is written in a way that I am not comprehending, but does this mean that there is now more upside than down. I am reading this funny maybe. I get 908-910 tops then start a wave down. This no final surge, yes final surge stuff is playing with me. The trend is down...

[Mamma Boom Boom]

NEELY: I see that he went short, last Wed., just when I said we were about to have a rally. Of course, he was wrong and I was right. Of course!

But my point is, this points to how difficult it can be to identify market turns by counting waves. It's just more complex than that. Maybe is river thingy is pretty good with timing, but it's obviously not as good as my thingy.

[Papillon]

So what are you saying Ned, new bull push here? What is your thingy saying?

[Jeff]

NEELY: I see that he went short, last Wed., just when I said we were about to have a rally. Of course, he was wrong and I was right. Of course!

I am sure people will respond to you. but I think I think you give yourself too much credit.

[vipul garg]

neely has little or no clue about market complexity.!
are we looking at announcement of ned complex wave theory now?

[Mamma Boom Boom]

>>So what are you saying Ned, new bull push here? What is your thingy saying?<<

It's a little early to say with high confidence, but my guess is that the rally is exhausted and we go back to falling prices.
-------------------------

...I am sure people will respond to you. but I think I think you give yourself too much credit.

It's a free country, you can think what you want. But I guarantee you nobody is going to pat me on the back for all these great calls. Nobody but me, that is.

[Papillon]

Vipul: Agreed, although I still value his macrolevel views, I just don't trade with his recommendations.

[Steve]

"my guess is that"

Ned. exactly what I guessed about your great calls! guesswork!

[Mamma Boom Boom]

>>Posted by: Steve<<

Steve, I don't remember you. Did you just crawl in from under the wood-work? A COCK-ROACH?

[Ned, I agree with DG. You are dumb.]

Ned, I agree with DG. You are dumb.

[DG]

By the way, that was an unsolicited agreement with me.

Ned, I doubt Neely is worried about you catching up to him in the grand scheme of things.

As I mentioned in one of the just prior threads, Neely took his Hourly traders out of a short trade that had netted 32 points. Since his call that June 11th was the top, Hourly traders have made 43 points on ES trades.

But my point is, this points to how difficult it can be to identify market turns by counting waves. It's just more complex than that.

Maybe if Neely's method was just "counting waves", you'd have a point about him specifically. There is also an underlying logic and verification process that is absolutely cognizant of immediate levels of market complexity and isn't simply a mechanistic exercise in "wave counting".

I get the impression you (and most of the others who consistently criticize) don't know half as much of what you think you know about Neely, and that's being generous.

[Mamma Boom Boom]

DG,
....By the way, that was an unsolicited agreement with me.

Really? I always thought that you and Mr Multi-profiles was the same person.

.....I doubt Neely is worried about you catching up to him

Correct, he's not shaking in his boots.

......Neely took his Hourly traders out of a short trade

I read that, and don't doubt it. All I said was that the market caught him looking the wrong way. It happens!

....you (and most of the others who consistently criticize)

It's called 'constructive criticism'. It's not mean spirited, I simply pointed out how I was right and he was wrong. And it happens quite often. Hey, I've told you before, I like the guy, I respect his work ethic.

[DG]

I've used multiple profiles, but not to agree with myself.

He actually went short on July 1st, which was essentially perfect timing, so I'm not sure where you got your information. He then let the market stop him out by showing strength, which is a completely logical way to trade.

[Jay]

With respect to the DX, we may be in a 4th wave triangle, but it is a Wave B of 4 triangle that should break topside to complete C of 4. That would be far more consistent with a potential drop from current levels in equities.