New Elliott Wave Rule Forums

JANUARY 19th 2010
The DOW completed the C of 4th wave today. This occurred at the high
of 10,729.70 late in the day.

We now will be looking down to make our 5th of C.

OK Here are the pics. The first one shows where we are overall
as requested.

[attachment=11]

The second chart shows the completion of our current 4th wave
(that is the 4th of an RTB C)

PS. There is a detailed count for the C wave up through last week
( http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-11.html ) and this one picks up where it left off:

[attachment=9]


=========== Blooper Alert ===========
This is the one I put up originally (1/12) but the lack of detail below 1 minute
on the 1 minute chart that I was on did not allow me to check
underneath waves. I could have gotten a tick chart but did not and
ended up with a miss on the scale. The hidden 1st and 2nd on the 5 minute
also fooled me without the detail but the ultimate fooler is the stretch of time.

EW does not care about time but I know I was sure in a hurry for it to finish.
Must be why it dragged its feet. But I should have realized when I ran out of
properly timed degrees.

[attachment=6]


Historic moments in the making.

(01-11-2010 09:08 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]

DOW Makes it's Move Today

The DOW completed the C of 4th wave today. This occurred at the high
of 10,675.90 late in the day.

We now will be looking down to make our 5th of C.

OK Here are the pics. The first one shows where we are overall
as requested.



The second one shows the completion of our current 4th wave
(that is the 4th of an RTB C)




Historic moments in the making.

Wow this is definitely new and an intelligent way to count.

Thank you.

I am not so cloudy on EW anymore.

3kings

Hi Tom,

I've enjoyed reading your NEWR eBook but like many, I'm not yet capable of labelling charts of my own. Studying more chart examples is probably the only way I'm going to "get" it. Thanks for this chart example, and, if you are inclined to post any FX charts (GY,GU,UJ,EU...) that is really my personal focus.

Your DJIA chart here is one such example I can learn from. Some things that I'm hoping you can clarify are:
* When you are labelling charts real-time, how often do you find yourself relabeling a wave-count? (In other words, subsequent action showed some wave exceeding some other wave which then implies a different interpretation, so you back up and relabel...)

* In this DJIA chart, was it obvious in real-time the density of wave-labels starting from the "4 to start labelling "i "ii "iii *A, then *a ? Did the long corrective series that followed give any reason to shift the "i "ii "iii labels forward?

* I guess I'm surprised to see such a long final stretch of Jan 11th with no labels. By this point, this is a *v (Sub-Nano) degree which is your smallest set. This final wave structure would seem to imply a sub-sub-nano labelling would help, yes?

* In light of today's (Jan 13) high (10709.11) exceeding that of Jan 11, does that change the count in any way? or change your opinion about when the next big wave down may start? (Plenty of top callers out there, EWI included yet so far the bulls haven't wanted to give up).

* You have just one complete set of each degree labelled, except there are two sets of "*A *B *C" (Nano). Are there more similar degree sets on the chart, just unlabelled?

* I see "3 (mil) going to "a (sub-mil) then *A (nano) (presumably "A "B "C (nano) unlabelled from "3 to "a ??)
Later on, I see "iii (sub-mil) going to *A (nano) then to "a (sub-nano). Hmmm... 3 degrees always? (working on it).

More Q's later as they come to me...
Pips4life

(01-13-2010 05:01 PM)pips4life Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Tom,

I've enjoyed reading your NEWR eBook but like many, I'm not yet capable of labelling charts of my own. Studying more chart examples is probably the only way I'm going to "get" it. Thanks for this chart example, and, if you are inclined to post any FX charts (GY,GU,UJ,EU...) that is really my personal focus.

Your DJIA chart here is one such example I can learn from. Some things that I'm hoping you can clarify are:
* When you are labelling charts real-time, how often do you find yourself relabeling a wave-count? (In other words, subsequent action showed some wave exceeding some other wave which then implies a different interpretation, so you back up and relabel...)

The way that I do this is to get the count from the details. Only time it
cannot be counted for sure is when there is not sufficient detail.

That is when I do it correctly. ALL of us take shortcuts at times and
those are what will do you in, not waves changing shapes.

Now, you are a programmer and a trader. There is ABSOLUTELY no
reason for you to not get it.

The only trouble is the standard rules have turned so many into
grasshoppers trained by the lid and sore heads.

My friend, the lid is OFF! Jump - Go for it. Never let risk aversion rule.

Quote:* In this DJIA chart, was it obvious in real-time the density of wave-labels starting from the "4 to start labelling "i "ii "iii *A, then *a ? Did the long corrective series that followed give any reason to shift the "i "ii "iii labels forward?

Moving down to the next lower degree when a terminal is reached is like
walking and breathing. Again the details of waves are what makes it take
on the count. Tiny details are looked over.

It helps to be able to have practice at the new method though for sure.
That's just like anything else so it's in the nerve trunklines and ready.

Quote:* I guess I'm surprised to see such a long final stretch of Jan 11th with no labels. By this point, this is a *v (Sub-Nano) degree which is your smallest set. This final wave structure would seem to imply a sub-sub-nano labelling would help, yes?

* In light of today's (Jan 13) high (10709.11) exceeding that of Jan 11, does that change the count in any way? or change your opinion about when the next big wave down may start? (Plenty of top callers out there, EWI included yet so far the bulls haven't wanted to give up).

Those are really one issue. The stretch is where the lack of detail finally
shows up. It shows up as requiring tick data as well as needing more
degrees just to label.

When I count I do not need labels except for display and if I need to
keep things straight just placing a "C" on a chart gives me my next
starting point and it is done in my mind irrespective of degrees.

The one thing which was not ok was assigning a wave 5 without that data
being available. As stated elsewhere this lack highlighted Elliott's lack and
that is why the NEWR remained hidden.

Now the top-callers and NEWR diverge seriously. They say the end of
Grand Supercycle Wave 5 has already passed. As we now move south
even more they will feel validated in that view.

When we move north to REALLY finish GSC-5 it will be called another
'correction' (at first) but this will take some time yet. Our current focus
should definitely be DOWN for this wave 5 of C of Supercycle-4.

NEWR will be critical here because this wave can be shallow or deep -
all depending upon real-world dynamics and, yes, fundamentals and
underlying psychology. The tendency is for this wave (C of an RTB 4th)
to be much shallower than expected given the potential but, again,
nothing is off the table.

The potential is a horrible prospect of just near the low of the
Great Depression. Let's not go there - it is not likely.

Quote:* You have just one complete set of each degree labelled, except there are two sets of "*A *B *C" (Nano). Are there more similar degree sets on the chart, just unlabelled?

There are usually unlabeled degrees for clarity in labeling since each and
every wave is present and significant to the build but not helpful for the display.

Quote:* I see "3 (mil) going to "a (sub-mil) then *A (nano) (presumably "A "B "C (nano) unlabelled from "3 to "a ??)
Later on, I see "iii (sub-mil) going to *A (nano) then to "a (sub-nano). Hmmm... 3 degrees always? (working on it).

Yes you have that correct. You have about 3 degrees acting as major
players despite the comment above that all do actually play a role.

Quote:More Q's later as they come to me...
Pips4life

Enjoy.

Ok, The chart has been updated to show the high on the DOW.
(See 1st post top of thread)

(01-20-2010 03:19 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, The chart has been updated to show the high on the DOW.
(See 1st post top of thread)

With reference to the first picture above, shouldn't there be a [c] after that retrending [b]? Here, I only see [b] which then jumps to [i]. Starting a motive wave at a smaller degree such as [i] in this case has to start from a "C" which should have been [c], right?

By the way, your ebook is awesome. It does make me think.

Joel C.

(01-20-2010 06:21 PM)Raklian Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2010 03:19 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, The chart has been updated to show the high on the DOW.
(See 1st post top of thread)

With reference to the first picture above, shouldn't there be a [c] after that retrending [b]? Here, I only see [b] which then jumps to [i]. Starting a motive wave at a smaller degree such as [i] in this case has to start from a "C" which should have been [c], right?

By the way, your ebook is awesome. It does make me think.

Joel C.

Thanks Joel,

The inset shows the [c] greyed out as yet incomplete. You are correct
that this is what comes next at that degree.

Also thank you for spotting that I slipped the wrong degree label into
that motive series. I fixed that in the pic. You may have saved some
head scratching for someone else.

(01-20-2010 09:15 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2010 06:21 PM)Raklian Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-20-2010 03:19 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, The chart has been updated to show the high on the DOW.
(See 1st post top of thread)

With reference to the first picture above, shouldn't there be a [c] after that retrending [b]? Here, I only see [b] which then jumps to [i]. Starting a motive wave at a smaller degree such as [i] in this case has to start from a "C" which should have been [c], right?

By the way, your ebook is awesome. It does make me think.

Joel C.

Thanks Joel,

The inset shows the [c] greyed out as yet incomplete. You are correct
that this is what comes next at that degree.

Also thank you for spotting that I slipped the wrong degree label into
that motive series. I fixed that in the pic. You may have saved some
head scratching for someone else.

Oh, right. Now, I can see we are waiting for the price action to make a new low before making that "grayed-out" [c] become the official [c] as the ending of the 4th wave will have been determined. I didn't quite get it until just recently. It helped after you mentioned it as "incomplete."

Joel C.

Hi Tom,

Great stuff! You must have tremendous stamina. Do you consider futures data significant or do you limit counting to normal exchange hours? I suspect the way to go on this is to write a computer program, though another concern is what to do if/when the stock exchange has a computer failure.

Anyway thanks for the count, it is of great value in confirming what has thus far been a gut feeling as to how much trouble we are in for.

Cheers
Dan

(01-24-2010 05:55 AM)Steely Dan Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Tom,

Great stuff! You must have tremendous stamina. Do you consider futures data significant or do you limit counting to normal exchange hours? I suspect the way to go on this is to write a computer program, though another concern is what to do if/when the stock exchange has a computer failure.

Anyway thanks for the count, it is of great value in confirming what has thus far been a gut feeling as to how much trouble we are in for.

Cheers
Dan

Hi Dan,

You are welcome.

The futures do play a significant roll. They are in fact what makes the
DOW and other indices behave like leveraged instruments when they
are 'about' the underlying non-leveraged issues.

I am acutely aware of this distinction because I originally found the
key to Elliott Waves while stock and futures trading.

The key worked on non-leveraged but not on leveraged. One day while
swimming I got an idea about something which related to the constructs
of the key. I got a calculator and tried it. It worked.

I now had a conversion factor which would change back and forth
between leveraged like Forex, Commodities, Futures, and back to Stocks.

It worked for indicators. It worked for everything you could think of on
which to apply it.

So by this I learned that leveraged and non-leveraged 'run' at different
frequncies. I later learned to look at something nobody recognizes which
is speed changes in the market's price action. This is where the price
will at some times sail way above or below a given indicator and other
times interact heavily with the same one. Price is at a different speed.

Yes they speak of "Fast Market" but this is usually only used to hold you
out of the price you wanted. The speed changes as part of Technical
Analysis is not a developed aspect overall. Just a speed sensitive
oscillator will not do the trick because it relies on arbitrary bar sizes.

The speed needs to be matched BEFORE you apply an analysis.

Anyway I said that to say that I have real reasons, not just an opinion
about why futures are important to their underlying issues.

These feed back and forth on one another. Since they have different
closes the wave can still be working. This is a curious thing to see in
action as waves blend into formation without breaking rules.

You do see gap openings and lack of detail though so there is evidence
of its effect.

How exactly that works into the herd psycology is maybe another topic.

It probably would require a computer program to cipher some of these
things. I wonder if we would even input the correct variables at the start?

GIGO