New Elliott Wave Rule Forums
Latest S & P 500 Count - Printable Version

+- New Elliott Wave Rule Forums (http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums)
+-- Forum: New Rule HQ (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Financial Instrument Types (/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+---- Forum: Major Stock Indices (/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+----- Forum: S & P 500 (/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+----- Thread: Latest S & P 500 Count (/showthread.php?tid=72)



RE: Latest S & P 500 Count - TS Hennessy - 10-21-2010 02:20 PM

(10-21-2010 01:51 PM)finster869 Wrote:  TS- Just so I understand, you have us building the "b" still?

Yes, that is why it is greyed out.

Smile


RE: Latest S & P 500 Count - spike1 - 10-22-2010 04:01 AM

(10-21-2010 02:20 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote:  
(10-21-2010 01:51 PM)finster869 Wrote:  TS- Just so I understand, you have us building the "b" still?

Yes, that is why it is greyed out.

Smile

Hi Tom

Thanks for posting that one, its really caused me to take a few small steps back, which I guess is really one big step forward. Firstly,Ive realized there are no shortcuts. At first glance and casualy counting that a at 1122.79 it does appear to be a c4 but when you really drill down into it, one can clearly see where 1 ends and can clearly see that the 4th wave does not have a retrending b in it. Also although I do realize that the termination of the retrending b is actually the termination of a c on a smaller scale I havent been giving nearly as much attention to it (the fact that its a c) as I should. Also the diffirent degree lables, I see now just how important ithey actually are in bringing order to the unfolding count. One really does have to have quite a keen eye for detail when applying this rule, dont they. Anyway thank you once again for posting your count and take care. Cool


Hi Tom, question. - spike1 - 10-22-2010 11:24 AM

Hi Tom

You mentioned in your last sp500 post that "My thinking is that this may be getting advanced too quickly" . Are you perhaps suggesting that we keep both counts ?? I hope you dont mind but it would be really helpful if you could explain what you meant by that.

Thank you and take care.

Cool


RE: Hi Tom, question. - TS Hennessy - 10-22-2010 04:07 PM

(10-22-2010 11:24 AM)spike1 Wrote:  Hi Tom

You mentioned in your last sp500 post that "My thinking is that this may be getting advanced too quickly" . Are you perhaps suggesting that we keep both counts ?? I hope you dont mind but it would be really helpful if you could explain what you meant by that.

Thank you and take care.

Cool


I meant that I disagreed with the count which was being put forth and
it was going to be more beneficial to post my views than to let it be
discovered in due course ( imo ).

Most of the time I do not wish to interfere as lessons come down the
pike in their own way. This time I made an exception.

Smile


RE: Hi Tom, question. - spike1 - 10-23-2010 03:00 AM

(10-22-2010 04:07 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote:  
(10-22-2010 11:24 AM)spike1 Wrote:  Hi Tom

You mentioned in your last sp500 post that "My thinking is that this may be getting advanced too quickly" . Are you perhaps suggesting that we keep both counts ?? I hope you dont mind but it would be really helpful if you could explain what you meant by that.

Thank you and take care.

Cool

Hi Tom

Thank you for clearing that up and enjoy your weekend guys.
Cool


I meant that I disagreed with the count which was being put forth and
it was going to be more beneficial to post my views than to let it be
discovered in due course ( imo ).

Most of the time I do not wish to interfere as lessons come down the
pike in their own way. This time I made an exception.

Smile



RE: Hi Tom, question. - finster869 - 10-23-2010 07:23 AM

(10-22-2010 04:07 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote:  I meant that I disagreed with the count which was being put forth and
it was going to be more beneficial to post my views than to let it be
discovered in due course ( imo ).

Most of the time I do not wish to interfere as lessons come down the
pike in their own way. This time I made an exception.

Smile

Tom- I am sure we are all definitely glad you jumped in. While I totally understand your wanting us to discover our mistakes ourselves, those of us posting charts are picking up each other's counts/habits. So, if you don't interject as soon as you see a mistake, I think it will actually backfire, with us picking up each other's mistakes.

So, please, please, please don't hesitate to post your charts.


RE: Latest S & P 500 Count - Perry - 10-23-2010 09:56 PM

Hi all,

After looking at Tom’s chart and reexamining the data I can see the move from 1157 on 9/30 to 1131 on 10/4 as a B wave consisting of a 3 - abc.

However, I’m struggling more with the count on the ‘A’ wave move from 1122 on 9/23 to 1157 on 9/30 as a non-RTB 5. I’ve got the 3 as the high @ 1149 on 9/27 and the 4 as the low @ 1132 on 9/28. I’m concerned that this results in a very tiny B wave relative to the A & C in the 4th. How have you counted this?

Thanks,
Perry


RE: Latest S & P 500 Count - TS Hennessy - 10-24-2010 07:18 PM

(10-23-2010 09:56 PM)Perry Wrote:  Hi all,

After looking at Tom’s chart and reexamining the data I can see the move from 1157 on 9/30 to 1131 on 10/4 as a B wave consisting of a 3 - abc.

However, I’m struggling more with the count on the ‘A’ wave move from 1122 on 9/23 to 1157 on 9/30 as a non-RTB 5. I’ve got the 3 as the high @ 1149 on 9/27 and the 4 as the low @ 1132 on 9/28. I’m concerned that this results in a very tiny B wave relative to the A & C in the 4th. How have you counted this?

Thanks,
Perry


This is how I count that wave.

[attachment=341]

The proportions fit more into the characteristic of the wave, which
appears to be 'simple' more than anything else, it seems to me.

We cannot see it because of the gap but if you were to see it I bet
the wave .ii would have exhibited a 'complex' characteristic as the
correctives will alternate simple and complex within the
larger wave.

In any case I do not see anything out of the ordinary.

Smile


RE: Latest S & P 500 Count - Perry - 10-25-2010 02:28 PM

Tom,

Thanks for posting the chart. Every time you post one, my comprehension of NEWR moves forward another step.

Perry


RE: Latest S & P 500 Count - TS Hennessy - 10-25-2010 04:25 PM

Let me add a PS. to my last post.

In that post I mentioned Waves 2 & 4 in a motive will alternate simple
and complex.

These simple and complex characteristics also show up inside the
motive portions of corrective waves as the A and C will alternate simple
and complex within the larger wave.

I find the RTB-4th A waves very often look like the one you were asking about.
They can be incredibly sleek and then the C will drag itself all over the map.

This can be the other way around as well. It looks to me like this corrective
wave's A is complex and the C is simple. Non-RTB waves are usually more
compact. This C, while having a faster speed and hence covering more ground,
still remains pretty streamlined while the A is covering much time and little price.

These tendencies may be basic and well known but these little things can help
bring out the detail and clarify a tough count.

Smile