New Elliott Wave Rule Forums

Full Version: Swing Pivot identification
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hello Tom,

I guess what's really confusing to me is the wave count as far as defining a swing pivot is concerned.

I'm not sure if the pivot is formed after the previous high or low is surpassed. This leaves me with two scenarios as in the case of "normal elliot" counting, which doesn't really clarify matters to me.

Attached screen shot of GBPJPY as an example. I'm still a bit confused as to where the swing pivot is formed?

Could you possibly assist?

thanks
(12-15-2014 02:40 AM)Edwin Wrote: [ -> ]Hello Tom,

I guess what's really confusing to me is the wave count as far as defining a swing pivot is concerned.

I'm not sure if the pivot is formed after the previous high or low is surpassed. This leaves me with two scenarios as in the case of "normal elliot" counting, which doesn't really clarify matters to me.

Attached screen shot of GBPJPY as an example. I'm still a bit confused as to where the swing pivot is formed?

Could you possibly assist?

thanks

Welcome to NEWR, Edwin. Smile

Generally a swing pivot is what stands out from the crowd as the end of a former trend and beginning of a new trend.

This does not matter whether it is EW, NEWR or standard TA.

Note however that when counting in EW this will have to have a degree attached to the understood meaning in order to be correctly applied.

Specifically you must correctly use the count beneath your current degree in order to know when a swing has actually completed the wave.

Nothing after the final 5th of 5 determines this. A wave is always determined to complete at its own terminus. Our shortcuts in counting convenience will often use the obvious swings as evidence enough for hanging a label. It may not be the right one even if it was right to hang one.

There are only 3 wave formations yet we have all this blessed variety!

You have a 5 wave motive and 2 correctives, the typical ABC and the NEWR ABC with the RTB. That's it.

Therefore it is required that a mechanism exists which markets use to create all the variety (and plenty of confusion for traders).

This mechanism is speed changes. Price travel in amount of time is what that term speed refers to.

So when a faster market has longer moves we may erroneously assume a change in degree or in other words "Backwards Revise" and automatically label with a 3 when it may only actually feature a 3 within an A of (a) of an RTB (or other combination).

Point is you must pay very close attention. Each degree must prove where it belongs by correct count. Enough data must be present and shortcuts will often spell disaster.

Here is more what I see going on in this area...
[attachment=862]

Notice please that I did NOT validate your conclusions so this is exactly what I meant by a shortcut but I do have some clues identified to make me think it is not far off. Degree labels are not being used properly here and I suggest that you adopt the practice.

Now let's say I have this pretty close...

First takeaway should be that there was a major speed change even though not a degree change in my red RTB of blue 4. You should expect to see a segment featuring a speed change within a 4th wave. Then while watching for it you will be less prone to errors in the counts.

It is in this area especially where you must get underneath the hood and make sure what's what. My assessment is rough and that makes all the difference. The NEWR doesn't make things easier but rather proves just how much variety there can be. Even with that variety the waves will always precisely follow the rules. These rules belong to the waves so on this at least there is no variation.

Smile
Hello Tom and everyone else,

Thanks a mil for your reply. Clearly I have a lot to study on the NEWR. I find this extremely interesting and it correlates to some binary arithmetic combined with fibonacci counting that I'm looking at.

My counting method is based on the binary methodology i use and hence it seems a bit odd, heheh, still odd to me as well, but working on it.

Could you be so kind as to share your current point of view on GBPJPY?

My personal point of view - as long as 179.90 (give n take) holds, it could get up to 192 with a retrace and then to 195.

I appreciate your feedback and am fascinated with your methodology.

kind regards

Edwin
one more request if possible - did the Supertrader system give you a short indication to current levels. I'm guessing here - but the current level of 181.60 (+/-) would be the rtb 4th wave?

thanks
Edwin,

Glad that provoked your interest. NEWR IS Fascinating as is just about everything to do with markets (imo).

I do not do counting for people any longer but I will point you in the right direction (like the suggestions I gave).

Coming to the realization and finally proving NEWR in 2002 caused me to fall back on the usefullness of the key to the waves which the waves themselves generate (discovery of which allowed me to spot the NEWR in the first place).

The reason I fell back is because the NEWR roadmap shows that rough counting can no longer be tolerated AND if counting is to be done correctly the minutia is almost intolerable to me at times even though I love this stuff.

Perhaps the fact that we are now building waves in decadal size and time is precious at my age (and anyone's of course).

I began building tools to take advantage of the key and they became of great use to me. I had general location from counting but could apply the tools and let them decipher the retracement entry point for me, saving an absolute ton of time.

These were just for my private use. The application was just at the market turns of exhausted trends (completed waves) but indicators are across the whole chart of course.

One day I noticed that the rear view mirror always showed a similar pattern which I identified as having certain traits. This tool that worked with the key used a Fibonacci family of MA's and I began to document this set of traits that preceded the turns of the market as to how they related to the indicators I used.

There were 3 sets or 'versions' of the tool. That is, each was a factor of the other two. So I basically called them 1/2X and 1X and 2X. They were used as spanner wrenches in a way, using an appropriate size as needed to fit to the scale to which the application required in the market. Then it was the Fibonacci family of MA's that were each a Fibonacci factor of a central value found in researching the key which did the fitting to the micro-level.

That may be tough to imagine what is being described there but later on I realized what was actually being done so don't worry about it.

What was going on was my tool was matching up to a speed signature that the market creates at various scales. It does this to create the 3 possible formations combined with speed changes which it uses to work out what the market needs to do in terms of supply and demand while precisely building EW's.

The 3 sizes has since been replaced by a global variable (we call a "Speed Multiplier") which attenuates all the indicator's period settings at once in 3 place decimal adjustments and accurate internally to 8 places in the calculations. This is a market matching system which has a continuum of speed adjustment so locking on to the speed signature of the market becomes 100% mechanical.

It also negates the fatal flaw of reliance upon the bar or candle which is an arbitraily sized time limited container for ticks which the market knows nothing about. Now that is something which is only important as it pertains to a Technical Analysis (TA) approach which this is and EW is not flawed in that way of course.

The way this removes the reliance on the bar (whose close element is being used in indicator calculations) is there is a set speed multiplier range allowed for each timeframe. Where one timeframe leaves off numerically at say the high end, the next one takes over at its low end and so there is a time continuum unaffected by the bar itself. In other words the indicators are adjusted as a speed control knob to criteria which will tune the setup to the current market movement's speed signature independent of the typically static close element of a single bar.

All of that now handles the location part. No counting is being done anymore. It's a manual system and loading of what is called a Traitset Tool template with the setup already in place and then adjusting the speed multiplier to get a match of a set of traits according to criteria is the procedure. You cannot choose the wrong timeframe because the system won't allow you to.

At completion of the traitset a criteria gets the signal evaluation underway. That is where the key to the waves component comes into use with a Pullback Tool template. The key allows the system through the tools to tell us what the balance will be between old trend forces and new trend because as wavers know there can be a change of degree at a terminus.

In doing this it allows an entry at a retracement with very low drawdown according to the term. This process works exactly the same in both motive and corrective formations and at all scales. By this I do not mean that every micro turn of a market is a signal because matching of traits needs turns in the road we call Trait Building Reversals.

The system is using the motive key since every new trend move begins with a motive wave.

Sorry I don't get specific as to which movements are matching traits or signalling except for the few reversals I feature on the website.

I just recently discovered that all Forex Base currencies have a different "base speed" factor which powers Fibonacci reversal points in a Dynamic sense (IE. Not related to horizontal Fibonacci Retracements).

I call it Base Tuned Dynamic Support and Resistance (BT DSR for short) and it was discovered by a use that was a bit non-standard for the final signal tool we use called the X-Factor (which is again a Fibonacci family of ratios).

So I really am having too much fun to be counting and that probably comes as a shock for the guy that publishes the NEW EW Rule to say.

Interested technicians may visit that site here:
Supertradesystem.com

Smile
Thanks for your reply Tom. I've viewed your online vids and it's interesting. If i am going to invest in a system (and not get burned as in the past), i need to satisfy my own criteria and ensure that i am understanding the basics that it's implemented on.

Having said that, i will only implement a system that enhances my own methodology and having found yours, it could be something i've been researching and looking for, for quite a few years (guess everything in Gods' time).

I would also only invest in a system that is clarified or prooved to me in real time. Hence i would appreciate if you could share your systems current status on GBPJPY? I've noticed (if i understand the method correct), that on smaller time frames than the 4H chart it could possibly have formed final 4th corrective move which i've highlighted with the eclipse. Please ignore my counts - this is not based on NEWR or std Elliot pracises. What i'm trying to see here is if I understand the possible reversal indication as explained in the e-book?

I don't expect a full analysis or counting method from you, but I need to ensure i understand the methodology to possibly use it as an add-on with my own. from what i understand in the video - the Super system is based on NEWR?

Would the eclipse marked conform to the possible reversal? My own point of view, I see it as a corrective move up and not a next leg up as yet, but that's just my two pence?

PS - i notice the exact same patterns forming in EURJPY and USDJPY - just on different time frames.

thanks again
Edwin
Let me include the 15m chart to try clarify my observation

cool

tanks
Sorry Edwin. It seems that you mistook my descriptions and the video at my site (I am supposing it is the video "The Trouble with Today's Technical Analysis").

Supertradesystem (STAR) is not based upon NEWR, but both STAR and NEWR were uncovered as a direct result of the key to the waves which I had discovered prior to the evolution of all my methods in recent years.

The optimized toolset in STAR still has and is powered by this key at its heart. Every signal generated consults the key in an extremely calibrated way, matching speeds and forces of the market's moves.

The 3 Base/Yen pairs you were wondering about indeed were already logged into the watchlist as late stage developing setups from the recent high swing pivots (our term is Main Pivot, the beginning point of setups). They were all on the same timeframe as far as the charting platform but they were not all the same "timeframe" as far as STAR is concerned.

STAR uses the chart as is necessary and in these cases it was H1 but STAR turns the OTHER SPEED CONTROL KNOB which is the period settings of indicators. The factors applied to the 60 minutes were GBP/JPY 0.808, for an effective timeframe of 48.48 minutes, USD/JPY 0.832, for an effective timeframe of 49.92 minutes, EUR/JPY 0.856 for an effective timeframe of 51.36 minutes.

These were all just about the same "speed" (combination of timeframe and speed multiplier) but each variation is exactly calibrated to the specific movement. Those values come from the speed where all the criteria for the set of traits are met. These are viewed as histogram and arrow and indicator cross, just standard TA stuff and all mechanical (no subjectivity).

I don't quite know how you intend to make the decision about 'enhancing' your studies. It is quite ok if you do not wish to invest in STAR. Only you can decide its worth in relation to what you intend to get out of it.

There is no other system of which I am aware that matches up to speed changes in order to calibrate the analysis. Only 50% of the available speed controls needed to perform meaningful analysis is what all other TA systems utilize currently. If you use a non-TA analysis then you do not need to worry about that (only lines and EW qualify and the lines are perhaps arguably disqualified since a timeframe choice may alter them).

Beyond this your data analysis, of whatever form, must properly use a scientific method to be significant (not misleading). Modern research typically uses a control.

In the case of market research I propose this be a calibrating mechanism which must at least accomplish 2 things. First, we must basically remove the influence of our bar used IN the calculation UPON the calculation. Secondly we must render the changing speeds of the market to a factor of ONE-X in all cases.

If we do not do these things then we effectively have no "data analysis" in the scientific sense. Data analysis is comparative analysis. We need to have a baseline in order to compare things.

It was enough 400 years ago to begin the science of TA by adding indicators to bare charts. It did not evolve however and that is not enough today as far as this guy's opinion.

The trouble for indicators not calibrated to the market's speed is oscillation. No matter what your setup it will not be able to keep from providing trigger-type oscillations at some speed of the market and not others. The only condition where that would work is if markets had only 2 precise speeds and the market either worked at one or the other.

The only thing we can do since markets have a nearly infinite speed range is to make our analysis adjustable so it always works in the same way.

We have a chart with a timeframe choice which is one of the controls and we must use this unless we take it all into raw data without timed display containers. However there is one more control and so if not using it this is how I come up with only using 50% of the calibrating ability we can and must employ.

When what I refer to as "Dumb" TA gives you a technical setup it will consist of one or more indicators. It does not matter of whatever design or type the indicator is, they all make a calculation based on one of the elements of the bar.

The variable will be the period setting. It is static once set. This is the missing speed control. To prove it place a 30 and a 60 period SMA on a chart. This will show interaction of price with the lines which will change in congested vs strongly trending areas.

When the market is fast both will lag but of course the 30 will be closer to the price than the 60. Similarly the 30 will be more entangled than the 60 in the consolidation.

Obvious right? You would not expect to get the same resulting "Analysis" with both of those any more than you expect the same from a 15 minute and a 30 minute chart.

Well guess what. If you are on a 30 minute the view is the same looking at only the 30 MA as it will be on the 15 minute while looking only at the 60 MA. There will be a different number of arbitrarily sized tick containers. But the interactions with price will be identical.

The analytical viewpoint and conclusions would be the same because the bar has no relevance to the market and is simply part of our control of timed display. Where it becomes relevant is when adding indicators which use the bar as part of the calculation, specifically how many bars are taken in a lump.

Whatever form this technical setup takes it becomes an "Overlay" wherever we employ it. In this form it is static. To get my meaning here consider it possible to just lift the indicator lines right off the chart but they remain in the same position and now you move them onto a completely different area of the chart.

I think now you would agree there would be an erroneous interpretation if they were used for analysis in the new spot but calculations were from the old spot.

That is simple to conclude because we know the market is not static.

When we apply static indicators will we continue to fool ourselves by thinking there is some universally applicable understanding to be gained by the visible oscillations no matter how fast or slow the market is?

Yes I'm going to push the thinking even further here to obliterate the trust in speed-changes illiterate dumb TA.

Let's now change our 30 minute chart that has the 30 MA to a 36 MA period setting. What would this change tell us? I hope you said I have no idea because that is the whole point, we need some kind of reference marker.

The 36 might be the holy grail for all we know for this given segment on a 30 Minute. Don't count on it right? I mean we have a 95% chance we are wrong by failure standards.

Ok again let's change something. Change the chart to a 37 minute chart (sure some platforms can do this). Nope, I'm not feelin' that as the grail, I am sure we would be better off to change it to a 42 minute.

Complete nonsense isn't it? What is the magic smoke swirling around the 60 minute then? You see the timeframe is irrelevant - completely irrelevant. And so is the period setting.

Together the combination of timeframe and period setting are a speed of analysis. But you have been using a static speed because your period settings are stuck - AND - you only have a handful of timeframes. You really ought to get that fixed.

But where in this speed or time continuum are you going to land and decide what to use for your speed of analysis? You HAVE made a choice already as soon as you added your indicator.

The formula is simple...
Timeframe in minutes X Period setting = speed of analysis (or virtual timeframe perhaps)

It does not matter what we call it, it exists as a comparative because that is how we use it. What we have heretofore failed to recognize is why we use it and then decide the correct technique.

Since it is a comparative analysis of something moving I propose we treat it like a radar gun and get it calibrated before writing bad tickets all over town.

The police know how to do this. They don't write 95% bad tickets do they?

To calibrate to a standard is a simple procedure. Quantify the standard so it is measurable. STAR does this.

Now when we have a set of traits that do not meet the criteria we turn the knob (the period setting and sometimes also the combo of timeframe and setting) in a continuous fluid fashion until the criteria are met.

This sets our analysis to ONE in all cases. We have accomplished a true comparative (not random).

Then we employ the key to the waves but that is just some more cool shit. But we don't count because to count would mean we would need at least 3 systems for the formation differences and STAR is applied universally in the same way.

Now since I do not go into live demos and give away all the secrets then you may need to stay on the non-TA side of things (unless you don't mind using indicators the irrelevant way). I do wish you great trades and success with your research, Edwin.

Smile
Reference URL's