New Elliott Wave Rule Forums

With or without the new rule, the most difficult part in applying EWP is not so much getting the degrees right, but telling an a-b-c from a five wave move.

Below is my count of the move from June 8th to June 21st.

Like finster’s it’s a 5 wave count. However, where I have wave 1, he has wave 3.
Finster’s count results in a long wave 5, and makes it fairly easy to count 2 degrees with RTB 4ths.

In my count, waves 1, 3, and 5 are a little more in proportion. Although I did not label it, I think I could count 2 degrees with RTB 4ths.

I can see either as a viable count of that move. Can anyone tell me if one count is clearly better / right and why?

Thanks,

Perry

[attachment=168]

The wave count and analysis on this chart were done manually and not generated by ELWAVE. Elwave has there own version of wave degree symbols:

Primary is pretty standard 1-5, A-C in a circle
Intermediate is (1)-(5), (a)-(c )
Minor is 1-5, A-C
Minute is i-v, a-c
Minuette is underlined 1–5, a–c
SubMinuette is i.–v., a.–c.
Micro is I-V, A-C
SubMicro is i – v, a-c in a smaller font than Minute

Morning/afternoon/evening depending on your timezone.

Still not trading after the bumper return from "fat finger Thursday" but have been producing counts.

Can someone please check my logic and then help me with a specific problem on the S&P?

The move before a Pivot must be a C or 5th at some degree. In both those cases the last subwave at the the next lower degree down must be a 5th. So towards the end of a trend there must be at least two consecutive RTBs, each followed by C of 4 because we have at least a 5th of a C or a 5th of a 5th.

For the intraday data for the S&P, as it made its last High, I have no problem with the final move up to the top. On the 5 min, it counts fine and I "can see the C" but not validate it but I wouldn't expect to be able to do so given the scale of the whole move.

It's the "C of 4" that goes before it that I just can't got a handle on - no matter how hard I look, it counts on the 5 min as a simple five down with no RTB, so it's not the C of 4.

So either my logic is flawed, or I am missing something in that section of data on the 13th July (Zulu+1 16:35 to 18:55) , or there is an extreme, after the event solution, that is so full of confirmation bias; that even I can't see it.

cheers theory

TM, do you include after hours action in your counts? I often do, especially at peaks and bottoms. My logic behind that: The despair to get in or out must be at a peak when people buy or sell despite the large after hours spreads. The same happened on July 6 at 1:00 summer zulu.
Does that change your count to a possible A wave? Or an a-b-c for a regular 4 (that's what it looks like to me)?

I still think we topped. Here are my updated charts:

[attachment=179]
[attachment=180]
[attachment=181]
[attachment=182]

Thanks finster.

When it comes to market open versus 24 hour data I am convinced, after a lot of study, that you need to run them as two separate counts. On the S&P in particular, the two counts have been completely out of step in terms of lower Lows and higher Highs. The former caused by Asia after the USA non-trading day on the 5th and the latter by recent after hours results. [If out of hours has some specific meaning other than 24 hrs, then I have no view at this stage since I haven't looked at it.]

Your latest count matches the one I have but cannot accept at the moment i.e. the possible C of 4 is there but I cannot get an internal count, from the 5 min chart you also posted, to confirm it.

When it comes to these key patterns I rate each part of the subwave structure (1 2 3 A a b cRTB C4) as Y, N, P for possible or ? for detail unavailable. In the section in question I can see too many P and ? compared to the Ys for the possible C of 4 count. When I go for a simple five, I get 5Ys out of 5.

cheers theory

(07-19-2010 03:55 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ]Your latest count matches the one I have but cannot accept at the moment i.e. the possible C of 4 is there but I cannot get an internal count, from the 5 min chart you also posted, to confirm it.

When it comes to these key patterns I rate each part of the subwave structure (1 2 3 A a b cRTB C4) as Y, N, P for possible or ? for detail unavailable. In the section in question I can see too many P and ? compared to the Ys for the possible C of 4 count. When I go for a simple five, I get 5Ys out of 5.

cheers theory

Theory- Which C of 4 are you talking about (please give date or price range). Thanks.

finster,
I gave the details in my orignal post - didn't want to post a chart because I use a Spread Betting company data rather than true S&P.

On your last count it's the one that goes from blue .b @ 1097.19 down to red .4 @ 1091.62. [Looks like a five on there to me.]

On your 5 min chart it's from just after 17:30 until just before 20:00. [Still looks like a five to me.]

I can usually construct post event counts, of amazing beauty, in an incredibly short time but in this case all I can see is this a ******* five.

I always thought seeing 4Cs that weren't there would be the problem, not missing the ones that are there.

Thanks for the time you are taking on this - much appreciated.

cheers theory

Theory, In that part of finster's count he depicts an RTB 4th so
that b-to-c4 move should be a 5-wave if that count is correct.

In looking closer at the detail we see at M1 that the internals
support that wave formation.

I have crammed in as much as can fit so that the NEWR nested
RTB's can be seen. It indeed will look much differently than a
'typical' five and you may be surprised to see how soon the
first "4th wave is completed and also how that same
effect is repeated in the next "ivth wave.

With all that it is easy to see why a 'look' is not going to
always render the right number of 'Y's' - and sometimes
your gut instincts are all you will have. I say this because as
you can see in this pic there is even a nested set below sub-nano.

[attachment=186]

(07-19-2010 08:21 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote: [ -> ]Theory, In that part of finster's count he depicts an RTB 4th so
that b-to-c4 move should be a 5-wave if that count is correct.

In looking closer at the detail we see at M1 that the internals
support that wave formation.

I have crammed in as much as can fit so that the NEWR nested
RTB's can be seen. It indeed will look much differently than a
'typical' five and you may be surprised to see how soon the
first "4th wave is completed and also how that same
effect is repeated in the next "ivth wave.

With all that it is easy to see why a 'look' is not going to
always render the right number of 'Y's' - and sometimes
your gut instincts are all you will have. I say this because as
you can see in this pic there is even a nested set below sub-nano.

Tom- Great chart....thanks for sharing! That should help others get a better feel for counting with the new rule.