Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Interpretations of wave 4's
11-28-2011, 07:29 AM
Post: #1
Interpretations of wave 4's
Being a new member in this forum with an interest in EW, a couple of initial questions that some of the more experienced folks may be able to help out with....

1) For the interpretation of wave 4's under the new rule, is it not similarly plausible that a wave 4 triangle is developing with an 'a' wave that is smaller than the 'b' wave? Looking at the limited number of charts so far, I see mainly triangles interpretations (perhaps there are more key examples available).

2) I notice in some charts in the book (pg 29, 31, 32), wave 4 overlaps wave 2 - is this correct and why is the overlap rule discarded?

I'm a little confused on what i've seen so far and am struggling to understand how the new rule makes it easier to anticipate markets as it appears to increase the number of interpretations (esp when considering overlap)

Cheers

Oz
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-28-2011, 09:08 PM
Post: #2
RE: Interpretations of wave 4's
(11-28-2011 07:29 AM)OzWaveGuy Wrote:  Being a new member in this forum with an interest in EW, a couple of initial questions that some of the more experienced folks may be able to help out with....

1) For the interpretation of wave 4's under the new rule, is it not similarly plausible that a wave 4 triangle is developing with an 'a' wave that is smaller than the 'b' wave? Looking at the limited number of charts so far, I see mainly triangles interpretations (perhaps there are more key examples available).

2) I notice in some charts in the book (pg 29, 31, 32), wave 4 overlaps wave 2 - is this correct and why is the overlap rule discarded?

I'm a little confused on what i've seen so far and am struggling to understand how the new rule makes it easier to anticipate markets as it appears to increase the number of interpretations (esp when considering overlap)

Cheers

Oz


Welcome to NEWR Owg.

If a shape is seen such as a flat or triangle then it has only been
observed as a shape. In other words it does not alter any correct
counts nor does it interpret or aid in arriving at a correct count.

There are many retrending B waves which are shallow. That is, these
RTB's do not extend far beyond the end of wave 3. Then too you will
observe many that are going to create deep new trends beyond 3.

These occurences will of course take different shapes but it is only
the actual subwave structure which determines a wave count. That
leads to your next question.

The reason the idea of overlapping 4 into 1's territory is allowed is
simply because this is what the waves have always done and when
I say always I mean historically but they are not required to do this.

NEWR implementation does have the ability to make for a different
interpretation when compared to traditional EW because it is distinctly
different from that. This does not however imply that there are now
a greater number of interpretations unless one is comfortable in
having any number of correct counts.

Truly the waves maintain a strict ruleset. It was RN Elliott's goal, as
it is now ours, to ascertain what this ruleset is and implement it to
the same exacting precision as the waves themselves. Otherwise we
really have nothing to do with calling this a practice or analysis.

So does NEWR describe this ruleset with more truth to the waves?
That is up to the EW practitioner to ascertain today as was it their
task in Elliott's day. You be the judge. I believe there is no going
back though so be careful.

Smile

TS Hennessy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-29-2011, 07:34 AM
Post: #3
RE: Interpretations of wave 4's
Thanks for the welcome and your response TS.

Your response hasn't necessarily made it easier for me to consume how the new rule is applied with an unfolding wave count. With overlap of 4 and 2 - a new dimension of possibilities presents itself.

For example in the book on pg 31 referring to the GBP/JPY chart, would you have automatically labeled wave iii in the structure as it was unfolding and kept that count in place even though wave iv unfolded as a A-B-C flat and overlapped with wave ii? Time-wise, ii is very disproportionate to iv, making it difficult to see waves of the same degree and to determine if a wave or trend had ended.

Personally, as soon as an overlap of ii became evident (and a >61.8% retrace) the fall away to the downside would be a strong clue that a flat was unfolding and not a 5 wave impulsive move (down to .B in the chart).

This would be the B wave of a 5 wave triangle, with the triangle ending at "C in the chart and a small 5 wave impulse down to the end at .5. With a triangle in place, the odds are high for a correction or a change in trend - which occurred.

I'd appreciate if you could paste a few links to charts with examples that perhaps have some commentary as to the justification of labels. I have some understanding of what this method is aiming to achieve and I'm interested in understanding more about this technique, but I'm struggling to see how you and I could arrive at the same/similar count.

Cheers

Oz
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-29-2011, 08:38 PM
Post: #4
RE: Interpretations of wave 4's
(11-29-2011 07:34 AM)OzWaveGuy Wrote:  Thanks for the welcome and your response TS.

Your response hasn't necessarily made it easier for me to consume how the new rule is applied with an unfolding wave count. With overlap of 4 and 2 - a new dimension of possibilities presents itself.
Quite so. That is the idea, isn't it, to show exactly what the waves
have been doing so that you know what the possibilities are? Making
things easy is a relative thing which relates not to what I do but to
what you do with this information. My job is essentially done. I have
broken the rules out for you to see and to apply.
Quote:For example in the book on pg 31 referring to the GBP/JPY chart, would you have automatically labeled wave iii in the structure as it was unfolding and kept that count in place even though wave iv unfolded as a A-B-C flat and overlapped with wave ii? Time-wise, ii is very disproportionate to iv, making it difficult to see waves of the same degree and to determine if a wave or trend had ended.
Wave degrees are only determined by valid completions of waves
with valid internals, not by straightlining and definitely not by
visualization. I am trying to force this concept by hitting it hard in
the examples of shortcuts which allowed the NEWR to be overlooked
long after the tick data became commonplace. How many counts (or
should I say straight-line shortcuts) do you think that makes so far?
Quote:Personally, as soon as an overlap of ii became evident (and a >61.8% retrace) the fall away to the downside would be a strong clue that a flat was unfolding and not a 5 wave impulsive move (down to .B in the chart).

This would be the B wave of a 5 wave triangle, with the triangle ending at "C in the chart and a small 5 wave impulse down to the end at .5. With a triangle in place, the odds are high for a correction or a change in trend - which occurred.
Nowhere do I suggest that traditional EW does not have creative
approaches to naming shapes and a limitless cache of possible
outcomes but as I already stated a shape will not help one count.

The area you reference would make a nice diamond too wouldn't it?
I do not see this as either but as waves which must follow rules. I do
not see that area as a flat either. Don't get me wrong the shapes
are formed by waves. What happens countwise is a 4th wave that
has a retrending B, that's all.

We will not allow anything but 5 motive and 3 corrective waves and a
5th and C's 4th will have an RTB. Then we watch and see that all
rules are in place and never break and are consistent.

That is not actually more possibilities by the way. It contracts the
ruleset to the minimum requirements for a count. This is really a
simplification of wave analysis.
Quote:I'd appreciate if you could paste a few links to charts with examples that perhaps have some commentary as to the justification of labels. I have some understanding of what this method is aiming to achieve and I'm interested in understanding more about this technique, but I'm struggling to see how you and I could arrive at the same/similar count.
Cheers
Oz

Well there is not anything that needs justification from where I sit
since the rules and the waves must match and anyone coming to
the unveiled NEWR will need to apply it for themselves in order for
it to do them any good.

What I will do is present the very example from the book which you
mentioned, from pg. 31, but in the raw. If you want to try your hand
at labeling that area it is fully detailed and that is why it was chosen.

The labels I have on pg. 31 will indicate any highs or lows as these
were checked where they appear close. The inset shows that this
must be a terminal. The count which I arrived at is justified by the
details present and the whole point of the NEWR is that this is what
will always occur and I maintain that one will only see it by
applying the simplest EW ruleset in existence, the NEWR.

A little practice to see around the blinders is all I suggest. I had them
provided to me as were you. They didn't fetch much at the auction.

   

Hope you enjoy the assignment.

The point of this is...

that you will face this (the M1) at the end of this (the H4) and you'll
no doubt want to know where the pivot is, as you say,
Quote:and to determine if a wave or trend had ended

   

Taken from today's price action in the real EW and there's nothing theoretical about it.
(M1 detail is literally AT the arrow tips of the H4.)

Smile

TS Hennessy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-30-2011, 04:42 AM
Post: #5
RE: Interpretations of wave 4's
Thanks TS for your responses, however I'm not up for any assignments right now. I'm simply finding it difficult to comprehend why there is a large disproportionate difference in price and time between waves 2 and 4 in addition to overlapping waves in many of the examples. Introducing overlap complicates the identification of impulsive and corrective moves and with 13 groups of corrective structures this method doesn't assist me in narrowing it down.

I'm also struggling to see how two people in this forum could endeavor to arrive at a definite count at the end of their analysis. I'm not suggesting the rules do not work for you but it's difficult to gauge how effective they are at allowing two individuals arriving at the same conclusion (if this is the intent of the new rules).

However, in contrast I see EW analysts identify similar patterns in the market, but agree they will often have differing views on the corrective waves until they become established. In addition, many EW analysts also fail to understand where some waves actually start and end - which I thought Glenn Neely does a rather nice job at explaining in one or two of his chapters.

Cheers

Oz
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-30-2011, 08:47 PM
Post: #6
RE: Interpretations of wave 4's
(11-30-2011 04:42 AM)OzWaveGuy Wrote:  Thanks TS for your responses, however I'm not up for any assignments right now. I'm simply finding it difficult to comprehend why there is a large disproportionate difference in price and time between waves 2 and 4 in addition to overlapping waves in many of the examples. Introducing overlap complicates the identification of impulsive and corrective moves and with 13 groups of corrective structures this method doesn't assist me in narrowing it down.

I'm also struggling to see how two people in this forum could endeavor to arrive at a definite count at the end of their analysis. I'm not suggesting the rules do not work for you but it's difficult to gauge how effective they are at allowing two individuals arriving at the same conclusion (if this is the intent of the new rules).

However, in contrast I see EW analysts identify similar patterns in the market, but agree they will often have differing views on the corrective waves until they become established. In addition, many EW analysts also fail to understand where some waves actually start and end - which I thought Glenn Neely does a rather nice job at explaining in one or two of his chapters.

Cheers

Oz

Well if you do not wish to make an attempt at a count then it is up to
you. I wish you much success.

As for struggling to see how two people in this forum could endeavor
to arrive at a definite count at the end of their analysis this is
understandable. I checked and you have spent a total of 12 minutes
on the board to this point and with 3 fair sized posts it looks like you
could not have seen some of the great work our members have done.

Do they ever have challenges with gaps and very fast hidden data?
Yes and that is something which applies to any EW implementation.
I'd say they do just fine.

I wish to make note that I may have caused some problem for you
by unintentionally skipping some parts of your questions. For
instance you asked why the overlap rule was discarded. I answered
too generally on the whole paragraph. You may wish to do a bit of
research because you will discover that that topic has had a
vascillating stance over many years as well as currently enjoying an
exception for certain types of instruments.

I state without exception that overlaps occur in valid counts and that
there is no difference in the count rules for various liquid instruments.

Another area was not covered in as much detail as I should have
given your wording. You questioned, "...would you have
automatically labeled wave iii in the structure as it was unfolding and
kept that count in place even though...". This was answered but
clearly from your later comments I did a poor job.

Firstly to this I must answer that with the term 'unfolding' being
present there is no luxury of basing a valid count on anything but
the internals as they must validly fit where they properly must
and that comes from under the current degree and above it.

So as you isolate this to a realtime situation any wave whether iii or
any other should be labeled according to what it is in it's entirety of
internals in the structure imposed by externals. The example on pg.
31 was chosen afterwards due to it's proof of being a terminal. This
as stated in the book is to make sure it cannot be called something
else by anyone whatever their EW slant.

Secondly when in a wave which has been determined by an accurate
count at larger degrees, one arrives at the terminal wave it must be
a 5th or C. At this point your count using NEWR will be looking for
exactly what you questioned, the B of 4 retrending.

So all in all the entire thing which NEWR stands on is that one should
not just label it as it appears on some degree which is convenient but
it must be what it is by the internal and external structure and rules.

This is the very thing which allowed the notion of extensions as a
possibility to be seen as not actual reality and instead a constant
rule for every single wave cycle to be verifiable reality.

I do not need to justify anything further since this is a part of every
single wave cycle. No more than Mr. Elliott himself needed to justify
that after every motive wave there is a corrective one. It is there to
see and all he needed to do was point it out to us.

This is all I can do for you. If you will not take the time to prove it
for yourself then you should skip it because you are not going to
trade something you don't see. Just consider that the waves were
doing their thing before Elliott showed them to us. How many
analysts looked at them but did not see them?

I spent some time on this in the book regarding the eye and mind
being related to the invisibilty we sometimes encounter with solid
objects. In fact I spent some time on the whole thing. I didn't just
whip up some tricky new way of labeling but studied these real
events for years and found that this is indeed a new rule.

You may take as casual an approach as you wish. I think you may be
shortchanging your trading a bit however to not spend a little time.

By the way you have overcomplicated Corrective structures. They
have one type, motive wave, arranged with only two constructs,
single and double. You DO need to simplify!

Again I wish you much success, Owg. NEWR is what happens and
there are only two responses as mentioned in the book, ignore or
embrace. Embracing will take a bit more work but ignoring is harder.

Smile

TS Hennessy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-30-2011, 10:16 PM
Post: #7
RE: Interpretations of wave 4's
Again thanks for your responses TS. I will endeavor to re-read the book and perhaps assign myself some assignments.

Cheers

Oz
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: