New Elliott Wave Rule Forums

(02-23-2011 05:24 AM)Steely Dan Wrote: [ -> ]Theory Thanks for that, I do like the name of the oscillator. I think I may be guilty of making an assumption that the 1.70+ rally high which Tom's count predicts would coincide with a high in the major stock indexes. I was revisiting cable to see if this had influenced my counting.

A quick question on the Oscillator - I take it that it is designed to differentiate between third and fifth waves, if so can it be applied to new-R in the same manner seeing as the variability of an RTB wave may make it resemble a third wave in some situations and a fifth in others so there may be a danger of mistaking an RTB for a third or indeed a fifth wave.

Hi Steely, just been reading about your planting exploits etc. on the MCX board - Wow!

With the WAO, it's early days because all previous users have been looking at it in terms of EWT, without any distinction being drawn if there was an irregular 4th.

Thinking in terms of a down trend, the 5th "cannot*" be the deepest drop on the WAO, so that is proving very useful so far.

The next question is where does the RTB drop to? Can IT go below the 3rd on the WAO, before a less lower 5th level appears compared to the 3rd? If it couldn't then that would be great!

Sometimes you can even pick out the 3 A a b cRTB C4 5 from just the WAO.

I cannot over stress the need to keep to 100 to 150 candles for the pattern under test.

I am using it on Euro/£ at the moment and it is picking up every turn. I am deliberately using it out of context of the bigger NEWR count. So I could well be trading against the trend BUT if it can keep me safe and making money under those conditions, just think about IF I turn out to be correct......

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"cannot*"

There are some occasions when at the 1 min level, that seems to be broken because the final 5th is so lively. However that is because there aren't 100 to 150 candles available to check the final bit. So the whole pattern is OK in terms of 3rd and 5th BUT 3rd of 5th looks wimpish compared to 5th of 5th when looked at on wrong scale.

The problem now becomes constructing sub 1 minute candles from the 1 second data to get enough candles for the last bit. It's not really a problem but yet another example of each "solution" throwing up a new difficulty.

I am thinking about ignoring time and going to tick based candles - if it takes 100-150 candles on 37 ticks to cover the pattern then so be it. Then I might have to swap to 4 ticks to check the final bit but at least there might be 100-150 candles for the WAO to look at.

However, as far as I can tell there is no stuff on the internet about using the WAO on tick charts, so I am having to start from scratch.

cheers theory

Thanks Theory. I'm sat here having made the adjustment to the S&P count I suspected had to be made so dark green 4C becomes light green. The really key level is 1265.9 and I'm starting to look at 4C levels in the way that traditional technical analysis views pivot points, in other words as prices failed to bounce off one pivot I suspect the direction of travel may be maintained at least as far as testing the next pivot. I think I'll have to run WAO against the S&P chart to see what it tells me. I got as far as working out it is not a standard indicator so must have been written bespoke. Do you have the code or alternatively could you describe how to locate a copy of it?

(02-24-2011 01:15 AM)Steely Dan Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks Theory. I'm sat here having made the adjustment to the S&P count I suspected had to be made so dark green 4C becomes light green. The really key level is 1265.9 and I'm starting to look at 4C levels in the way that traditional technical analysis views pivot points, in other words as prices failed to bounce off one pivot I suspect the direction of travel may be maintained at least as far as testing the next pivot. I think I'll have to run WAO against the S&P chart to see what it tells me. I got as far as working out it is not a standard indicator so must have been written bespoke. Do you have the code or alternatively could you describe how to locate a copy of it?

If you use Ninja Trader then I have created a WAO indicator that I can share. It's very basic at the moment but I am going to build on it. It is based on Theorys criteria in his brick wall thread. The one available on the NT forum is in histogram format but I prefer curves
When I get time I will add features such as a 'window' of 100-150 bars as a guide, pivot detection, wave qualification and annotation and I am looking into adaptive chart timeframes where the bar period will be adjusted for price speed changes.

My longer term project is a NEWR indicator that takes a top-down approach to detecting pivots by switching timeframes (highest timeframe first then stepping down sequentially to intraday) and annotates the chart based on the rules we know. The effort required for this is snowballing...

Hi Ray, Alas I don't use NT. But I may check out the forum if I get time, time being the problem right now. Automating NewR is of course the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow which we all would love to have. I'm not surprised if you are encountering mission creep there, but the best of luck with your endevors.

Dear Tom,

I have just recently started to study both Elliott Waves in general and the the new principle that you have so wonderfully added to that understanding. Thus, I am a newbie in all respects. So please take that into account when assessing my questions. I am just trying to make sense of your fantastic breakthrough.

So, I am looking at the Cable chart that you have provided. And one observation I am making is that I am, of course, relieved to see that there are no W's, Z's, and Y's on that figure, for which I am eternally grateful...

But there is one thing that I am having trouble with in EW analysis, and that is the TIME dimension. In some mainstream EW instructional overviews/guidelines, there is sometimes mentioned that different waves of the same scale (1,2,3,4,5..) normally, or at least most of the time, have approximate relative lengths between them. So, someone might claim, for example, that W1 may manifest itself in approximately the same period of time that W2 does; and that W3 may be at least the length of W2 and sometimes twice the length; and so on.

So what would you say to that? Is it, in your experience, possible to make some kind of estimate in regard to the relative length of the waves? Or does the universe need the time dimension as "flexible", in order to be able to synchronize the unfolding of all events on all markets?

I am bringing about this question as I am once again looking at your GBPUSD chart. For in it, you have market up wave [1] with 7 bars, wave [2] with 6 bars, wave [3] with approx. 38 bars, and wave [4] with 1000s of bars (it basically covers the whole chart).

So the thing I am asking is this: Is there no limit in terms of the time that a 4-wave will consume? (cf. the EW "mainstream" concept of "Extensions"). Can we still say that there may be general guidelines for the length of time between non-W4 waves? (i.e., between, say, W1 and W2, or between W1 and W3, or between W2 and W5, etc.?)

I am most grateful for any comments that you may have.

Best wishes from an unusually warm and sunny Sweden,
Bo

(01-27-2010 12:13 AM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Well we all know how quickly you run out of Map when you are looking
for Higher Degree location data in Forex.

Just isn't sufficient history. There isn't much you can do about it.

Over 30 years and all that seems to be there is a partial correction.
That's not much help.

But...

This Cable chart has something which is crucial. I never noticed it
before. If you don't have enough history you can use the NEWR to help
by using differentiation.

This is the Benchmark for Cable and it shows in the inset the area
which aided the construction of this viewport. My feeling is that it
starts with a [B] wave. That starting point is labeled as [B] or [4]
because that could be either one.

As a matter of fact this entire labeling may be incorrect due to the
insufficient data. It is not possible to be 100%.

However, once locating the Motive Differentiation everything conformed
to the NEWR 100% in both directions as near as humanly possible to be sure.

Admittedly this is Weekly data but the scale is so large that there was
only one wave where 1 & 2 were hidden and that was an obvious fast
drop off anyway. Daily data was available from mid-1997.

Not sure if this resolves to prove otherwise within MY lifetime.

Confidence: Extremely High





Comments please.

You will not find any reliable time relationships as far as I know.

Actually the alternation in corrections as well as their motive subwaves
is a time relationship. However this may be in favor of either one or
the other (i.e. either 2 or 4 and either A or C may be the faster one).

This would certainly make any time relationship fairly useless as far as
reliability is concerned although very useful for identification of the
larger degree.

I am sure you have seen wave 2 be quick and dirty or stretch out for
what seems like forever before wave 3 starts. The same applies to the
4, and A vs C.

I believe that the RTB 4th subwaves of 5th waves are responsible for
quite a bit of change-ups when it comes to how long a motive will run.

Let's put it this way, it is these which kept the NEWR hidden and caused
the concept of extensions to come into being so it certainly muddies
the water on travel - and that takes time.

I know of no hard limit to the time a 4th wave may consume.

(01-27-2010 12:13 AM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Comments please.

This is incredible! I want to get this printed big scale so I can really look at it! thank you for this, it is quite incredible.

(10-06-2011 07:43 PM)amala Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2010 12:13 AM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Comments please.

This is incredible! I want to get this printed big scale so I can really look at it! thank you for this, it is quite incredible.

You're welcome.