(01-18-2012 11:18 PM)CalD Wrote: [ -> ]It's weird that all EW analysts all seem to be looking for a major downturn in the markets right now, notwithstanding cycle- and even super-cycle-degree differences in their wave counts and irrespective of the fact that no two of them ever agree on anything else.
CalD it is good that you took notice of this. There will always be times
when traditional EW and NEWR will agree (as well as times they will
disagree).
Right now they should definitely agree on direction.
The most crucial point of your statement is that of degree. When you
are talking about Supercycle it is crucial whether you are correct or
not. Here is where traditional EW will falter, not seeing what the
waves actually do. The 2007 highs are the top and that is all we care
to know. (?)
I hope that the import of seeing the effect that NEWR has on counts at
such monumental degrees as we see today becomes clear to EW
techs everywhere. My point is that now is an important time to know
the way the waves really move because such enormous scale will
cause errors to be amplified.
Good observation at this juncture.
(01-17-2012 10:01 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Here is how it looks from here...
Tom,
I can't see how you know the "3 is over because there is so much hidden in the holiday gap.
If it is over, the move down for the next "A type" wave is over as well, since on all my sources of data it went on to make a higher High without making a lower Low.
I cannot construct a count for that move down that meets the criteria for it to be an "A type wave".
So either I'm rubbish at this, or there is a count but it is difficult to spot, or there is hidden data, or it is a three and the "3 wasn't over.
If you have time, could you post a count for the move down if you still feel the "3 was over?
cheers theory
(01-19-2012 08:26 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2012 10:01 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Here is how it looks from here...
Tom,
I can't see how you know the "3 is over because there is so much hidden in the holiday gap.
If it is over, the move down for the next "A type" wave is over as well, since on all my sources of data it went on to make a higher High without making a lower Low.
I cannot construct a count for that move down that meets the criteria for it to be an "A type wave".
So either I'm rubbish at this, or there is a count but it is difficult to spot, or there is hidden data, or it is a three and the "3 wasn't over.
If you have time, could you post a count for the move down if you still feel the "3 was over?
cheers theory
Theory, is that based on IG index prices? The low on 18th Jan at 03:15 looks marginally lower than that on the same day at 21:30, I suspect this might not be so with actual market prices and I made the same 'A' wave over assumption you did.
(01-20-2012 04:50 AM)Steely Dan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2012 08:26 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2012 10:01 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Here is how it looks from here...
Tom,
I can't see how you know the "3 is over because there is so much hidden in the holiday gap.
If it is over, the move down for the next "A type" wave is over as well, since on all my sources of data it went on to make a higher High without making a lower Low.
I cannot construct a count for that move down that meets the criteria for it to be an "A type wave".
So either I'm rubbish at this, or there is a count but it is difficult to spot, or there is hidden data, or it is a three and the "3 wasn't over.
If you have time, could you post a count for the move down if you still feel the "3 was over?
cheers theory
Theory, is that based on IG index prices? The low on 18th Jan at 03:15 looks marginally lower than that on the same day at 21:30, I suspect this might not be so with actual market prices and I made the same 'A' wave over assumption you did.
Steely,
I checked on Yahoo S&P to two decimal places and the Low before closing was not breached by the next Low on opening.
cheers theory
Theory,
Here is another possible count of the move since Jan 1…not claiming its right…just that it appears plausible to me.
As always, I’d appreciate any corrections, suggestions or comments.
Perry
[
attachment=811]
(01-20-2012 11:17 AM)Perry Wrote: [ -> ]Theory,
Here is another possible count of the move since Jan 1…not claiming its right…just that it appears plausible to me.
As always, I’d appreciate any corrections, suggestions or comments.
Perry
Hi Perry,
The only way I could compare your numbering with Tom's labelling, on two different time settings, one with vertical lines on and one without; was to copy both to Paint, put them on the same sheet and then rescale one to fit the other, draw my own coloured lines on ...............
You differ on how you have interpretated the gap at opening on the 10th.
This allows you to finish a move earlier than Tom does and the nett result is that your 11.3 (his "3) finish at different times - you both can't be right.
Dropping down a degree you have a move labelled as 11.3 to 12.a (five) but Tom has it as "iii to "iv (three) - you both can't be right.
Now for the move that I mentioned. You have it as 13.a to 13.b (three) but in Tom's count it has to be a five - you both can't be right.
So what have I learnt? Nothing but it's cracking example of the problems we face.
1 Gaps cause problems when counting and NEWR relies on counting.
2 The same move can be classified as a three or a five by different people using the same rule - albeit at differeing skill levels.
3 Something that looks like it can't be a three, can be a three and similarly for a five - there are no 0% or 100% certainties.
Following on from 3 above, I still can't construct a five (even a weird one) for that last move. Doesn't mean there isn't one, just I can't see it.
My way of using NEWR relies on the counter-trend moves being clearly visible, and hence capable of being analysed in terms of probable content; so Friday was a non-event
cheers theory
(01-21-2012 05:31 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2012 11:17 AM)Perry Wrote: [ -> ]Theory,
Here is another possible count of the move since Jan 1…not claiming its right…just that it appears plausible to me.
As always, I’d appreciate any corrections, suggestions or comments.
Perry
Hi Perry,
The only way I could compare your numbering with Tom's labelling, on two different time settings, one with vertical lines on and one without; was to copy both to Paint, put them on the same sheet and then rescale one to fit the other, draw my own coloured lines on ...............
You differ on how you have interpretated the gap at opening on the 10th.
This allows you to finish a move earlier than Tom does and the nett result is that your 11.3 (his "3) finish at different times - you both can't be right.
Dropping down a degree you have a move labelled as 11.3 to 12.a (five) but Tom has it as "iii to "iv (three) - you both can't be right.
Now for the move that I mentioned. You have it as 13.a to 13.b (three) but in Tom's count it has to be a five - you both can't be right.
So what have I learnt? Nothing but it's cracking example of the problems we face.
1 Gaps cause problems when counting and NEWR relies on counting.
2 The same move can be classified as a three or a five by different people using the same rule - albeit at differeing skill levels.
3 Something that looks like it can't be a three, can be a three and similarly for a five - there are no 0% or 100% certainties.
Following on from 3 above, I still can't construct a five (even a weird one) for that last move. Doesn't mean there isn't one, just I can't see it.
My way of using NEWR relies on the counter-trend moves being clearly visible, and hence capable of being analysed in terms of probable content; so Friday was a non-event
cheers theory
Excellent post, Theory. I couldn't agree more regarding the limitations. If anybody reads all of the posts we have over the past several years it will be come clear that our counts are often wrong. As we work on larger and larger time frames, it takes longer to see that we were wrong. For instance, if 1370 whatever gets breached, then we have been wrong since May of 2011. We were recently wrong in thinking 1290s would hold.
Due to data limitations, and gaps, I think you are correct that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to ever have 100% certainty with a count. While Tom's theory that there is only 1 correct count could be correct, without perfect data and no gaps it is impossible for us to ever confirm that to be the case.
So, what do we do? I think your way of using NEWR is on the right path. You seem to weigh the risk/reward, and try to trade based upon it.
You mention that identifying the counter trend is crucial to your way of using NEWR. Can you expand upon it? Are you talking about clear 3 wave (such as 2s; and 4s that are a part of a 1-3 or A wave), or are you including 4c's as a counter trend wave?
Can you share how you use a clearly identified counter trend wave to forecast what you think will happen and make a trade?
finster,
I'll have one more go at trying to explain how I think about trading i.e. it isn't trading, it's gambling; pure and simple. I'll start a new thread called "What if this is a retrace?".
cheers theory
(01-21-2012 05:31 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ]...
You differ on how you have interpretated the gap at opening on the 10th.
This allows you to finish a move earlier than Tom does and the nett result is that your 11.3 (his "3) finish at different times - you both can't be right.
Dropping down a degree you have a move labelled as 11.3 to 12.a (five) but Tom has it as "iii to "iv (three) - you both can't be right.
Now for the move that I mentioned. You have it as 13.a to 13.b (three) but in Tom's count it has to be a five - you both can't be right.
...
Correct!
I think you analyzed the differences correctly. I think the counts are the same to 1/9…and differ after that.
As I said “
not claiming its right”…just seemed plausible to me.
I looked at the move down on 1/17 and had the same trouble you did seeing it as a 5 ( it’s possible the detail is hidden @ 1 min). This seemed like a possible count if that move was a 3.
Perry
(01-22-2012 10:04 PM)Perry Wrote: [ -> ] (01-21-2012 05:31 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ]...
You differ on how you have interpretated the gap at opening on the 10th.
This allows you to finish a move earlier than Tom does and the nett result is that your 11.3 (his "3) finish at different times - you both can't be right.
Dropping down a degree you have a move labelled as 11.3 to 12.a (five) but Tom has it as "iii to "iv (three) - you both can't be right.
Now for the move that I mentioned. You have it as 13.a to 13.b (three) but in Tom's count it has to be a five - you both can't be right.
...
Correct!
I think you analyzed the differences correctly. I think the counts are the same to 1/9…and differ after that.
As I said “not claiming its right”…just seemed plausible to me.
I looked at the move down on 1/17 and had the same trouble you did seeing it as a 5 ( it’s possible the detail is hidden @ 1 min). This seemed like a possible count if that move was a 3.
Perry
Hi Perry,
My data source at 1 min was no help and the tick level was absolutely useless.
I think there are two sections on the Futures that are worth looking at. Has to be Futures because they cross over through opening time.
The move down through opening on the 19th and then the move down from the 19th to the 20th.
Both moves close during open hours but will look different on a market open chart.
cheers theory