search elliott


  • Google
Share/Bookmark

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

FlagCounter

  • Where From?
    free counters
Related Posts with Thumbnails

« Bull Market or Bull-oney | Main | After the Round-Number Resistance »

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Comments

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

molecool

"The STU counts this wave as an A wave of a final zigzag."

How many people still bother to follow Prechter and Hochberg? Four months ago Hochberg claimed that we were in the final wave up - and it was the final X wave as another one would violate the rules. Since their count has been proven wrong they have not provided their subs with a conclusive long term count - they are mainly focused on the short term right now.

I don't know about the rest of you guys - but EWI has lost but any credibility in book. Yes, eventually they'll get it right and I'm sure they'll continue to quote that occasion to future suckers for another decade or so.

KRG

"A "method" has to transcend even its inventor at some point" - DG

Nice one...

forex-cat

Your article is always useful.
Thanks.

MHD

Tony C. was predicting Dow 39,000 before the market tanked. Then Tony C. predicted market would go down to at least 667 and probably 400 after bear market rally was over. His waves also had a hard time with this rally as the waves showed it had ended when it actually hadn't. Now Tony says we are in a new bull market. He may be right, but looking at his past calls based on "the waves", he certainly has to fix his wave counts, both short term and long term quite often.
Quite a bold call for a new bull market when looking at the big picture, but looking at the past, it's not out of the realm of possibilities.
Not long ago we had tech companies with no earnings or sales with a market cap in the billions. Their is no limit to human stupidity, so I can't say Tony's bull forecast is completely insane, but I have a feeling Tony just gave a buy recommendation to those tech companies as if we were in 2000.
We shall see!!!

G2

.. but EWI has lost but any credibility in book

Surely this blog has demonstrated time and time again that Elliot Wave Theory is an "after the event" labelling tool at best that is shamelessly used as a marketing tool by the newsletter services. As a predictive tool is just doesn't work in any of its various incarnations - EWI, NeoWave, Objective EW etc etc etc.

DG

G2,

One of the other things this blog has demonstrated time and time again is that hardly anyone is willing to put down a line in the sand and say "If Elliott Wave can be used to generate X% returns/year with Y% of a trading portfolio at-risk over the long-term, that proves it is a useful tool".

So, what is your X% and Y%?

Let's get concrete about numbers here. All this "Elliott Wave is crap!", "No, Elliott Wave is awesome!", is getting OLD.

G2

DG

Seems to me that you are the only one saying Elliot Wave is awesome. Tell you what, why don't you re-launch your blog as a public DGWave service and then we can all be better informed as to your prowess.

DG

G2,

No, what I say is that with Elliott Wave you can beat the market.

I'll take it that you're not willing to put down a rational number for either X% or Y%, then?

Well, then who the f*ck cares about your opinion, since you're obviously one of those idiots who expects to get rich tomorrow just because you can label a chart 1-2-3-4-5.

Good luck with that.

MHD

G2... I don't understand why you are so down on Elliott Wave theory. Tony says we go up, Neely says we go sideways, and Bob P. says we go down hard. How can you not make money with these Elliott forecasts?????

G2

Well, then who the f*ck cares about your opinion

Why do you always feel it necessary to resort to the language of the gutter when your opinions are questioned? That's a rhetorical question BTW.

nspolar

"Relentless Market Hits Psychological Round-Number Levels". That has a good connotation to it.

Glenn Neely as a public service to everyone in the whole wide US of A says we go up into mid June. He has been wrong on every call since the big bottom. How can we remain predictably on path? Fade Glenny boy for the umpteenth time off the big bottom?

More clear cut signals for a nice top here! Direct from da big boyz! They is like serving it on a silver platter to all the hicks from French Lick.

"ya gotta know when to hold em ..."

ns

DG

G2,

Because I think that when someone can't answer a simple question without being evasive, the response they deserve is a response from "the gutter".

And it wasn't that my opinion was "questioned" that prompted my initial response, it was that you are stating an opinion without any context. If you believe that any trading method should be able to earn you 100% returns with zero risk, well, that's insane, so your opinion about Elliott Wave, DGWave, NeoWave or any other wave is MEANINGLESS because it isn't grounded in reality.

So, my initial point was that I like knowing if I'm talking to someone grounded in reality or someone who believes they can study a chart for 10 minutes and make a million bucks the following day.

Again, what sort of risk-adjusted return do you expect from the market using a trading system like Elliott Wave?

Are you afraid to answer because you know that your expectations are unrealistic?

G2

DG

See MHB's post above - same theory, 3 different forecasts.

I'll say it again - re-launch your blog as a public DGWave service and then we can all be better informed as to your prowess. Until then you're just another hot air windbag.

yelnick

G2, saying EW is worthless misses some of the great calls, such as warning of a top in Jun 2007 and of a bottom in Feb 2009. I had thought a major bottoming was forming in Nov 2008 based on market timing, and indeed an interim bottom hit a day after I posted on this; but it wasn't the bottom. EW outdid market timing on that occasion. I think Neely got off track in Jun 2009 because he has an odd wave structure he was and still is following, that the Nov bottom was the important one and a triangle formed off it. Prechter did not call that a major top, but got caught in August with a double-short call. His next big call was right before the Jan top, but the dorp from that was in 3 waves and did not confirm the break, as I wrote at the time.

There is something to your comment about post-wave confirmation, but I do not think in the sense you wrote: the core play in EW is to put bets down at the wave 2 top, not the wave 1 start, in effect using waves 1 and 2 to confirm the change of trend. There are other methods ot do this, such as seeing of the drop falls faster than the rise. I think more focus should go into that area than parsing minute eave movements. I am watching Carl Futia with interest due to his box method, which is similar to something Neely played with twenty years ago.

Right now the market is at a point of entropy in a chaos theory sense, meaning is highly unpredictable, so any wave count is suspect.

DG

G2,

You know that there is probably not a single field of human intellectual endeavor where EVERYONE agrees on the future, right? Even the people working on the Large Hadron Collider, the most expensive, most scientifically-specified project in the history oa the human race, don't agree on EXACTLY what they will find, you do realize that, right?

So, does that mean you reject EVERY field of human intellectual endeavor because EVERY field generates different forecasts?

Look, it's a simple question. That you can't answer it makes me think that either you haven't thought about it OR you have some unrealistic expectations no trading method could ever meet.

For every 1% of risk, Neely returns 7% of on an annualized basis. Risk 2% on each trade, you'll return 14%/year. Etc.

See how easy it is to answer the question? Now you try it.

Zendo

G2, MHD...... kindly leave Dolce & Gabbana alone..... as he might be suffering some sort of bi-polar disorder. If you ask 10 EW practitioner for market view, they come back with 50 view first then few days later, they have another 50 in addition to what they have told you. The worst part of it is they always end up talking and kept talking... and debating... change their story... its a classic form of psychosis.

If we need DG's guidance, we should ask how much he has made using MEW over past 10 years since the way he described his know how sound sophisticate and super???

?

DG,

I think you should run for President of the USA. You are so polarizing like BHO and GWB that you can expect 1/2 the people the hate you....

EW

Judging from the heated debate here, the market might continue to humiliate both bull and bear elliot waver. Yet some people just use the elliot wave to show they are intellectually able or they can grasp complex concept, not really speculate to make money. No wonder why so many quant guys blow up, because they are so into themselves?

DG

If we need DG's guidance, we should ask how much he has made using MEW over past 10 years since the way he described his know how sound sophisticate and super???

Why does it boil down to my personal portfolio? I'm trying to have a discussion about the bigger picture here and I'm not under any obligation to divulge personal details nor do I ask anyone who bashes wave theory to do so. On the level I am TRYING to discuss these issues, it's irrelevant. If you have some other trading method with a track record, SHOW US THE STATISTICS. I don't care if your portfolio is $10K or $10B, what I care about is the risk-adjusted returns. Period.

Even if I am a total screw-up in applying the method, that doesn't mean the recommendations weren't sound.

I've compiled the statistics in order to have an objective conversation, but some people keeps wanting to turn it into a discussion about me, even though their initial comments are about Elliott Wave as a whole (To quote G2: "Surely this blog has demonstrated time and time again that Elliot Wave Theory is an "after the event" labelling tool at best that is shamelessly used as a marketing tool by the newsletter services. As a predictive tool is just doesn't work in any of its various incarnations - EWI, NeoWave, Objective EW etc etc etc.").

How do you go from that statement, which is an empirical claim that can be discussed without any reference to my trading performance or anything related to me, to complaining that I don't have a publicly-available blog? Come on, obviously G2 is changing the subject because HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT A REALISTIC RISK-ADJUSTED RETURN SHOULD BE. So, rather than answer my question, he bashes me personally. You do the same thing.

I just find that odd, but it's probably a reflection of the fact that none of you are doing the necessary data collection to back up your opinions. Which is fine, but that's not how I work.

DG

DG,

I think you should run for President of the USA. You are so polarizing like BHO and GWB that you can expect 1/2 the people the hate you....

Posted by: ? | Monday, April 12, 2010 at 08:32 AM

As long as it's the right half, I don't care.

MHD

Yelnick... If I remember correctly, in the recent past the market has fallen faster than the rise and so the end of the rally. As we know, that didn't happen, and the markets quickly reversed ignoring the faster drop than rise theory. Not too far back, there was a rising wedge that looked bearish when it broke to the downside. Naturally, the markets ignored the bearish break and moved higher.
The markets might not reflect the herds mood, but is influenced by massive injections of electronic money used to keep the masses from selling, and ensure an upward bias in the markets. Kind of strange that the futures have been up in 25 of the last 28 Monday's. I could be off a little , but that's close.
There is no limit to human stupidity or the government's for that matter. All that matters is keeping the line of greater fools full as far as the eye can see!!

Zendo

DG, get a grip.... and drink some cool aid. I don't use statistic as I am just another farmer. Don't worry, in case you want to know, I also worry about return too. Thats "absolute realistic no BS return".

MHD

What I'm getting at is everything that has tried to predict the end of this rally has failed as far as technical analysis. I think I know why Ben always has that sh%t eating grin on his face. One call to GS and the bears get their head handed to them on a platter.

Zendo

MHD, when GS need something cheap someday, or when they are loaded up with shorts... we'll get the top from the Fed, not elliot wave count.... :)

Bird

Two things.

1. I did an analysis using a price/time cyclical method last September which suggested that the current upswing would not end until sometime into 2010 and offered two possible junctures. (I tend not to listen to myself, which is why I liked the Jan 19 moment.) The first is April 26th (weekly bar, so give or take a week or so) and the second is Sept 20.

2. An observation and question (maybe for DG?). Take any chart and mark every "pivot" (a higher high or lower low followed by a bar break). Then go through and see how many of those pivots lead to new highs (lows) and how many get cut off as the primary short term trend resumes. Roughly speaking, and as one would rationally expect, with-trend trades occur approximately half the time (maybe a hair less?). Place a trade on each pivot, with stop a few tics off the pivot low or high. Then, apply simple money management: take profits at +2, take losses at -1. Let's say you are on an hourly time frame and take 1 trade per day. To keep the whole thing honest, assume that your with-trend trades are right only 40% of the time. (I think this is generous even in choppy markets--take a quick look yourself.) So if you take 22 trades in the month (more trades are of course possible, as there are as many triggers as there are instruments) with $1000 risk per trade, and you are wrong 60% of the time, then your losses at the end of the month are $13,200 and your gains are $17,600, or net positive $4,400. Subtracting $900 for slippage and commissions, nets you $3500 per month. Assuming risk of 1.0% of account per trade, I think this is an annualized return in excess of 40%, without compounding. Now I'm counting on you all to show me that I'm a moron for thinking like this. Is this the bottom line reality? Up down up down...but with a little trend every other time (or so)? Otherwise the chart is flatlining because the lights are out across the world. I'm not sure I could bear to do it, but I think this may be the essential reason why profitable traders are profitable. In which case, ANY reasonably identified turning point should have a roughly 50% chance of being right, with 2:1 reward risk. Strange if this is true, how we make ourselves so crazy.

MHD

Another take on stupidity. If Tony C. is right and we are in a new bull market headed to new highs, then it started when Congress told the banks to mark their toxic assets at whatever they wanted (100%). That's when the markets bottomed and the "new bull" began.

DG

DG, get a grip.... and drink some cool aid. I don't use statistic as I am just another farmer. Don't worry, in case you want to know, I also worry about return too. Thats "absolute realistic no BS return".

Posted by: Zendo | Monday, April 12, 2010 at 08:55 AM

Zendo,

I wish I spoke whatever languages is your native tongue, because, frankly, your posts are basically gibberish to me. I don't say that to be sarcastic, but honestly I have no idea what point you are trying to make. And your use of the "farmer" metaphor is WAY past its usefulness in helping you make your point.

Obviously, risk-adjusted returns are the only important thing when measuring a trading method. That is why I am asking what wave theory bashers would consider ACCEPTABLE RISK-ADJUSTED RETURNS.

The problem is I NEVER see any of you guys talk about NUMBERS. It is ALWAYS about opinion.

Molecool

From all the responses here I favor Yelnick's the most. Being fairly known for my own EWT analysis (and having done quite well with it) I must admit that I now mostly use my counts to anticipate the strength of a a current move. And yes peaks of 2nd waves is where all the action is - absolutely.

But forget predicting Primary degree trend changes - EWT has clearly failed on that end. However some of my own work in analyzing momentum appears to offer that missing link none of those renowned proponents of EWT have been able to address properly - that of time. I think even Carolan is stumped these days...

More to come on that end - stay tuned.

yelnick

MHD, a break becomes a false break if it quickly goes back above the lower trendline. The speed of break suggests a change of trend but does not confirm until (a) stays below the trendline, usually with a kiss of death attempt to go above and (b) breaks as a "5". Hence one must be prepared for a flip back up. Putting a stop (in a short) at the lower trendline at the speed of drop forward is a reasonable trading strategy. If you recall, in Feb I said the Jan break was false due to these items even as EWI kept looking for a further fall. That false break thing I got from Zoran, who simplified Neely.

Right now what is important right now is the breadth of the market, which is still bullish (uptrend). It usually turns down ahead of a market top (eg Jun 2007). What it signals is the real top is not that close. I still am looking for a triple top - Jan, Apr/May, then Aug. Aug may be lower than Apr/May.

yelnick

Mole, glad you are still posting over at EvilSpeculator. I recommend the site to others - in my daily scan of ewave sites it is the first tab.

DG

MHD, a break becomes a false break if it quickly goes back above the lower trendline. The speed of break suggests a change of trend but does not confirm until (a) stays below the trendline, usually with a kiss of death attempt to go above and (b) breaks as a "5".

One other thing to consider regarding these failed breaks is that when in a Corrective structure an X-wave will most likely be "larger and faster" than any of the breaks formed in the prior :3. Thus, was looks like a change in trend is actually an x-wave.

There is no way to discern between a real change in trend and an x-wave of this sort, at least not that I know of.

MHD

Another point on the "bull market" view....why are the insiders continuing to sell massive amounts of their stock and buying very little. In fact, the most recent info I've read on insider activity is the unusual low amount of buying. You never trade short term on this info, but are these insiders complete idiots when it comes to investing?
I guess we will know soon enough!

MHD

The triple X....enough to wipe out most bears, and the 3rd X to draw in the last bullish holdouts.
If true, it even sucked in Tony C. I remember Neely saying that the end of this rally would make him question himself about whether this is just a bear market rally, or a new bull market. Looks like he is right about that!!!

DG

The triple X....enough to wipe out most bears, and the 3rd X to draw in the last bullish holdouts.

MHD,

This has been my count since early March, as shown by these two charts.

http://yfrog.com/6cspxweeklymarch1px

Hockthefarm

Still doing the Hockey Pokey.

A good one from Hussman:

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc100412.htm

Good luck playin the burps.

upstart

Note that Carl Futia also believes 3/09 was a "generational low", i.e. we're in a new bull market. He said so quite some time ago. And I believe he expects a fairly large echo bear market after we get to the top of this rally in late 2010 or sometime in 2011.

Mamma Boom Boom

>If true, it even sucked in Tony C.<

He has no track record. Well after the bear market started he remained bullish: http://caldaroew.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=amonth%3d12%26ayear%3d2007

Even after he finally figured out that the market was going down he completely under rated it: http://www.imagebam.com/image/681c0576175105

It's only natural that he would turn bullish, right here.

I've been talking about everyone entering the assimilation room for some time. It's what you expect to happen.

Chabazite

What is the general consensus about Alcoa's performance? It didn't seem exactly 'stellar' to me. Revenues missed analysts estimates by about 8% when ... “there were things going in their favor this quarter.” A net loss of $201 million, despite aluminum prices that were 57% higher on average in the first quarter than a year ago. Despite the 10c EPS (presumably driven by greater efficiency) and Revenues being up 18%, I fail to see how anyone can consider these numbers as evidence that the economy is out of the trees. Small steps in the right direction, but maybe not as far or as fast as hoped?? Note also the health-care overhaul drag. How common will that theme be over coming days and weeks?

Tommy

Tony C´s count is a joke. What a forced set of 1s and 2s. Any success he´s had is not from his ability to count waves.

Hank Wernicki

Note, it's one thing being a arm chair quarterback.

And anohter being an actual trader who posts his/her trades.

IF you don't see the guru playing the game, why listen ?


DG

Hank,

I've tried to get some of these guys posting here who claim to trade but who seem to conveniently never have a losing trade to post in real-time, but they always say they are "too busy trading" to do that. The couple of trades they have posted in real-time have been nothing special.

It's a no-win situation. You call them out on the fact that they can't possibly never have losing trades and if they want to prove it they should be posting them real-time and they say they're too busy to respond. Yet, they have no problem criticizing others' trading, presumably when they get a free moment from their own 100% winning trades.

No real-life "guru" can match 100% imaginary winning trades.

DG

Speaking of real-time trades and wave counts, I've been posting this chart for the past week. We'll see if today's high holds for a while. Since wave-.E was at the lower end of its typical Fib relationship to wave-.A, I expected wave-.G to be weak, although it had to be longer than wave-.E to fit the rules for this pattern. Even if this high holds for a while, there's still no guarantee that today was "the top" and that's definitely not what I'm claiming.

http://yfrog.com/2rspydailyapril7p

Zendo

DG, gibberish is what I have been reading from you for awhile. Number should be about how much money you have made using your well touted MEW or your so-call scientifically and statistically proven method, thats real, thats solid information to demonstrate the method you are dire to protect is functioning in the real world.

Just keep on rambling about statistics of your back testing result won't cut it, since there is no real and serious sizable money being made or lost using it. Show us the money, you'll get the respect and shut people up.

BTW, your intense effort to continue to ask people for statistic proof start to show some kind of over compensation for something... what indeed you are lack of? A justification for your understanding of MEW? Or your real deficit is something deeper?

DG

Zendo,

I do just fine. You don't see me complaining about how much E-wave sucks like you guys constantly do, do you?

"BTW, your intense effort to continue to ask people for statistic proof start to show some kind of over compensation for something"

How so? You like to accuse me of things, but never provide even a shred of evidence, like you did with the "data fitting". I could, with as much evidence as you have provided, say you are overcompensating for something by saying I am overcompensating for something. Oh, boy, what a great discussion that is. You accusing me of something with no evidence and me accusing you of something with no evidence. Is that how you were taught to rationally discuss things in school? If so, you should get a refund on any tuition you paid.

Anon

The German Hyperinflation of the Early 1920's - "At first, Germans reacted to the higher prices by economizing and reducing their consumption. But when they realized that it was not just a matter of some things being more expensive but instead that the mark was losing value they reacted by spending their marks as fast as possible. This meant that there was little constraint on prices. " http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hyper.htm#GERMANY

Looks like bears are few and far between, the powers that be couldn't force SRS down today and the VXX fell on minute volume. Could be an interesting op ex.

vipul garg

"A successful person isn't necessarily better than her less successful peers at solving problems; her pattern-recognition facilities have just learned what problems are worth solving." - Ray Kurzweil

The comments to this entry are closed.