New Elliott Wave Rule Forums

(01-14-2011 02:19 PM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ]Steely,

I have the move down on our charts from 1288 to 1278 as a top quality C of 4, it is as about as high a rating as I give. (So it's probably not one.)

The fact that it coincided with my FTSE 5938 must hold trade, risk 10 to get at least 100; shows yet again the need IMO to have two Indices going. One representing the European view while the S&P is closed.

Yet again IMO the DAX does not serve that purpose, it's only 30 companies, and 10% of those are car makers. The FTSE is better in some respects but there could well be a composite that would serve us well.

I never seem content do I?

Anyway EWT target 1291 just been breached, so next stop 1307......

cheers theory

Hi Theory, I meant to post during the day but the site had a few gremlins. I agree 1278 is the level, when we got close to taking out 1288 I actually paused considering whether 4C was actually over or not, I should have taken it for a 10:1 reward:risk ratio. The good news is that having taken out 1279.8 then making a new high cements green 4c as confirmed in my book. Indeed the sharp rise following looks to me like a fast pivot 5 on a large scale. I've pushed matters far enough to be looking actively short now. 1290.9 looks to be the signal level imho, though I hope we plough on upwards giving an even better short entry.

P.S I will study Tom's comments on this but I do habitually look at the FTSE, which is a pretty interesting roller-coaster at the moment.

Apologies for putting a Dow chart on this thread but I think the last move looks different to the S&P and the Dow did not finish on a high so worth a look at. If I am aright the Dow has topped

This is my take on it


Cheers


USD

Tom,

Is this what you mean?

[attachment=488]

I have taken a different approach. The behaviour of the two Indices, relative to one another seemed, to swing in and out of sync, particularly when comparing Lows.

I have taken some chunks of data from S&P and DOW on a 1 hr basis - roughly 1000 pieces.

DOWClose=7.68*S&PClose+1970 with R squared 0.988

DOWLow=7.69*S&PLow+1960 with R squared 0.988

OK, so just because there is such a high degree of correlation between two variables, doesn't prove there is dependency and there could well be at least one other variable, which should be included; but was seemingly dormant during the data collection period.

So what's the problem?

When I sorted the data by Lows and looked at all those where S&P was between 1185 and 1195, the level of correlation drops dramatically. When you extract a sample from the complete set, you'd expect to get some variance but not as much as this.

However, when you are comparing 30 of something with 500 of something then it should not be that unexpected.

Now, for any system based on Lows and Highs, IF something happens to say just one of the 30 to cause it to move rapidly away from previously "normal" behaviour AND this coincides with a key level THEN the two counts MIGHT be forced to become very different.

In other words, it might just be a temporary blip but it is real, it is not duff data, it reflected sentiment albeit in a limited area for a limited time, it happened and can't be ignored.

What is particularly intersting in this case is, given my limited experience of counting, they appear to be showing similar patterns before and after the event.

Now it is impossible to get a relative dislocation in a single Stock or Forex Pair since they are made up of individual objects. The problem can only arise with mixtures i.e. Indices and when you compare two of them it doubles the opportunity.

Does this make sense?

cheers theory

Just a thought Theory, The Wiltshire 5000 should give the most representative data for the U.S also I do know there is a world index not to mention one consisting of Europe's top caps. The problems at highs and lows will probably be the same as you described, but in such cases what do you do? Perhaps there is a way of determining if one index 'leads' another. If this was so perhaps it could be determined by some means and the count then taken off the leading index?

I had 6 bounces off 1290.9 between 19:35 and 20:40 GMT on Friday, decided to use that as defensive cover goes on level.

I cannot get any sort of read on the internal structure, so decided to go neutral until after the holiday.

FTSE is still a nightmare, closed half on Friday at same time as S&P cover went on but left half running (split with profit locked in and below "must bounce" level).

Europe seems very jittery at the moment. Spain denies it needs help and every one gets nervous because the Greeks and Irish said they didn't but they did....

cheers theory

(01-17-2011 09:48 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ]I had 6 bounces off 1290.9 between 19:35 and 20:40 GMT on Friday, decided to use that as defensive cover goes on level.

I cannot get any sort of read on the internal structure, so decided to go neutral until after the holiday.

FTSE is still a nightmare, closed half on Friday at same time as S&P cover went on but left half running (split with profit locked in and below "must bounce" level).

Europe seems very jittery at the moment. Spain denies it needs help and every one gets nervous because the Greeks and Irish said they didn't but they did....

cheers theory

I think I will continue in neutral mode too. Though I do suspect 1286.7 might turn out to be a 4c level.

P.S If Tom's euro-gbp carry trade is right my count would be we had better rise soon, counting it as 1-2 from the top with one more small dip to complete 2.

(01-17-2011 10:44 PM)Steely Dan Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2011 09:48 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ]I had 6 bounces off 1290.9 between 19:35 and 20:40 GMT on Friday, decided to use that as defensive cover goes on level.

I cannot get any sort of read on the internal structure, so decided to go neutral until after the holiday.

FTSE is still a nightmare, closed half on Friday at same time as S&P cover went on but left half running (split with profit locked in and below "must bounce" level).

Europe seems very jittery at the moment. Spain denies it needs help and every one gets nervous because the Greeks and Irish said they didn't but they did....

cheers theory

I think I will continue in neutral mode too. Though I do suspect 1286.7 might turn out to be a 4c level.

P.S If Tom's euro-gbp carry trade is right my count would be we had better rise soon, counting it as 1-2 from the top with one more small dip to complete 2.

Steely,

The move down to 1286.7 does have a solid five against IMO for the A and a nice three for the RTB BUT where the heck is the C4?

There is something there but not anything I'm prepared to put money on.

Given what has happened afterwards, the higher High has been made, then I accept it as a 123 A RTB ?; for a completed and confirmed 4C but only after the event.

On the FTSE, however, the internal C4 was much clearer but the signal to use that came while I was asleep.

So out of neutral, naked Long S&P having lost a few points by taking out insurance - will exit PDQ if I see anything I don't like the look of.

Still running the FTSE Long but have shifted up S/L to lock in just less than 100 at the moment.

My dual FTSE counts are driving me mad. I "knew" the move to > 6056 was there BUT as part of what? The > 6091 seems to be winning on balance i.e. my original thoughts rather than the alternative that you also thought was viable.

cheers theory

Theory, Also long, but on FTSE. Monday did enough to make me suspect the next move was still up and so it proved. Time to dig out Tom's post about projecting the end pivot I think. P.S Looks like it wants 1300 S&P.

(01-18-2011 06:03 AM)Steely Dan Wrote: [ -> ]Theory, Also long, but on FTSE. Monday did enough to make me suspect the next move was still up and so it proved. Time to dig out Tom's post about projecting the end pivot I think. P.S Looks like it wants 1300 S&P.

Hmmmm!

I think that idea runs counter to everything else in NEWR i.e. that the waves must obey rules but are then free to do what they want within those rules.

It maybe is that it serves as a guide sometimes, but how much of that is the backfitting pattern findinging part of the brain at work; which causes EWTers to see triangles?

cheers theory

(01-18-2011 07:42 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2011 06:03 AM)Steely Dan Wrote: [ -> ]Theory, Also long, but on FTSE. Monday did enough to make me suspect the next move was still up and so it proved. Time to dig out Tom's post about projecting the end pivot I think. P.S Looks like it wants 1300 S&P.

Hmmmm!

I think that idea runs counter to everything else in NEWR i.e. that the waves must obey rules but are then free to do what they want within those rules.

It maybe is that it serves as a guide sometimes, but how much of that is the backfitting pattern findinging part of the brain at work; which causes EWTers to see triangles?

cheers theory

Hi Theory, Just to make sure we are not at cross purposes I think it worth stating that the way we have developed trading newr is the best method for picking entry positions. It is however very labour intensive, which is why I think it worth trying to narrow down when it would be most productive to count.

As a case in point the S&P finished just .5 above the green C4 level and taking as a hypothesis that we have topped this is a good place for wave 1 down to end as it delays confirmation of trend change. Therefore I part covered at 1280.5 hoping to catch wave 2, but I will not go net long here.