First try at S & P

[finster869]

Here is my first try at labeling. I am sure there are mistakes. Please review and point out any mistakes so I can try to get better.

thanks!

[TS Hennessy]

(02-14-2010 05:24 PM)finster869 Wrote:  Here is my first try at labeling. I am sure there are mistakes. Please review and point out any mistakes so I can try to get better.

thanks!

I would offer this as the count for S&P 500.

Hope this will be helpful to you.

   

[finster869]

Thanks, that's very helpful.

Question: Why do you start off (1), (2), (i), (ii), instead of (1) (a), (b), ( c), (2)?

Also, on some charts I see you going 3 (A), (a), (b), ( c)/(B), ( C), others just 3 (A), (B), ( C). How do you know which to show?

Thanks again for your help. I am having fun learning your new method.

[TS Hennessy]

(02-16-2010 11:26 AM)finster869 Wrote:  Thanks, that's very helpful.

Question: Why do you start off (1), (2), (i), (ii), instead of (1) (a), (b), ( c), (2)?

Also, on some charts I see you going 3 (A), (a), (b), ( c)/(B), ( C), others just 3 (A), (B), ( C). How do you know which to show?

Thanks again for your help. I am having fun learning your new method.

Wave (2) [movement (1) to (2)] implies the (a-b-c) and it occurs prior
to the (i-ii) movement. The highs in their endings are at similar price
levels but the (ii) is lower than the (2) and subsequent to it.

The labeling of details is just a judgement thing for what is worth the
time. Labeling of waves is universally incomplete because there are
details within details, whether visible or not.

That is never to be confused with the formation of waves.

The in-between movements of un-labeled waves does not mean they
are not occurring and they are always implied.

The labeling of a (1) implies a motive pattern of 5 waves as well as all of
its internal subwaves to the Nth degree. Labeling all that is seldom useful
although it will sometimes be used to show up particular tendencies
toward errors like non-recognition of internal wave 4 overlap of wave 1.

Any casual counting errors could benefit from very detailed counting
but rather than do too much of that judgements are made to cover
only enough detail as needed to get the job done.

It is fun isn't it?

[finster869]

It is fun! Can you put up your updated chart so I can see how you labeled today's price action?

This wave up better end soon, or we are going to have to change our 1 circle to be at 1040 (if what we are calling the current 2 gets to 1105, the count is no longer valid since we exceed the start of 1).

[TS Hennessy]

(02-16-2010 07:20 PM)finster869 Wrote:  It is fun! Can you put up your updated chart so I can see how you labeled today's price action?

This wave up better end soon, or we are going to have to change our 1 circle to be at 1040 (if what we are calling the current 2 gets to 1105, the count is no longer valid since we exceed the start of 1).

Actually I will not have time for that this evening.

You are absolutely correct of course about the implication of exceeding
the top of our second wave.

Now I want you to keep a secret.... ( Despite the goal of definitive
wave counts I am also human and screw things up from time to time )
Just don't tell anybody.



The one comfort after working with this over 4 years is that when I do
mess up the new rule has not been the problem. Another thing is that
it is recognized quite quickly.

That may be a similar downfall to the work put in by my standard rules
comrades but there have been far far fewer such situations.

It is still details details details and lots of work - just better results, but
unfortunately not perfection ( at least in my counting ). The waves are
just fine and keep doing their thing.



Hope everyone is ok with that.

[finster869]

I can't speak for everyone, but I'm certainly ok with that :o)

Thanks again for the prompt answers to my questions!

[Steely Dan]

Having just got down to the 1 minute level on the Dax charts I can well understand how counting errors could be made. I have found RTB's gave me a couple of trading opportunities recently, but the problem thus far appears to be knowing the largest degree to which an RTB applies.

At the risk of getting too philosophical I can imagine that even if you could write a program to count waves - you would still be limited by the quality of the data and even the way exchanges calculate their value eg. What happens when stocks are promoted or relegated from an index, and what about adjustments due to dividends.

Still imho an attempt to automate counting is a worthwhile endeavor seeing as the fuzzy logic needed to program traditional EWT guidelines is no longer necessary.

[finster869]

Updated S&P chart for you to review. I have the current trend having completed at 1101. Let me know what you think.

[finster869]

Hi Tom. When you get a chance, can you post your updated S&P chart or review and critique the one I posted above? Thanks!