Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
why
12-22-2015, 06:41 PM
Post: #1
Question why
Hi
I read you ebook and want to know more about this new rule.

My first question is theorical one :
Why only the b of 4 of 5 is retrended ?Why all other waves coudn't be subject of this rule?Huh
Also, how long can b be extendable against a : For example b<2.618a?
Huh


The second is pratical one :
Here is usdcad classical weekly elliot count.As it's now developping v(green) of [3](orange).
   


I tried this rule on wave 4(violet) of this v(green) :
on this daily usdcad chart [b] (red) is RTB wave where [b] = 1.786[a]
   

Is it the good situation for applying this new rule?And is it corrrect?Huh
(sorry for my poor english)Rolleyes
Regards
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-24-2015, 10:46 AM
Post: #2
RE: why
ok for the extrem b fibbo extension vs a , i read in the forum you would not consider it
But why only TRB & others waves not own this wave personality?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-24-2015, 03:57 PM
Post: #3
RE: why
(12-22-2015 06:41 PM)paulselvan Wrote:  Hi
I read you ebook and want to know more about this new rule.

My first question is theorical one :
Why only the b of 4 of 5 is retrended ?Why all other waves coudn't be subject of this rule?Huh
Also, how long can b be extendable against a : For example b<2.618a?
Huh

This would depend on whether it is part of a 5th or C, the only places where the NEWR phenomenon exists and whether it is bound by the wave of next higher degree to remain a sub-wave.

There are no exact limits in a 5th wave that is not going to violate those aforementioned bounds, other than the exact count the waves will form and the speed and scale under which they will blossom.

Quote:The second is pratical one :
Here is usdcad classical weekly elliot count.As it's now developping v(green) of [3](orange).



I tried this rule on wave 4(violet) of this v(green) :
on this daily usdcad chart [b] (red) is RTB wave where [b] = 1.786[a]


Is it the good situation for applying this new rule?And is it corrrect?Huh
(sorry for my poor english)Rolleyes
Regards

I would tend to strongly disagree with these chart's labeling based upon what I consider to appear as some casual counting. I would want you to examine about 4 degrees underneath these swings at a minimum.

Specifically I suggest that the terminus A is not a completed 5 wave motive as it would require. However on this point due to lack of data in forex at the current scale we could disagree forever. My thinking is that this is more likely the terminus of the downward B of an RTB on next higher degree.

Move labeled A to (a) on the weekly I would likely label as completion of the 1-2-3-A-B of the C of previously suggested portions of an RTB 4th.

The (a) to (b) I would likely label the C of same and so on towards our latest move.

ALL of this is based upon my own casual counting of which I suspected in YOUR counts. HAHA - I'm not a hypocrite, but I just do not take the time to do full counts much anymore.

CONFIRMING any of what I suggest would be up to someone else's due diligence. (YMMV)



(12-24-2015 10:46 AM)paulselvan Wrote:  ok for the extrem b fibbo extension vs a , i read in the forum you would not consider it
But why only TRB & others waves not own this wave personality?

As explained by Mr. Elliott it is all some sort of natural rhythm and I do not understand why the RTB is only where it is any more than why a motive wave ONLY has 5 sub-waves.

Smile

TS Hennessy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2015, 04:28 PM
Post: #4
RE: why
thanks for your replies
can you sketch nowadays usdcad count?
regards
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-26-2015, 11:29 AM
Post: #5
RE: why
(12-25-2015 04:28 PM)paulselvan Wrote:  thanks for your replies
can you sketch nowadays usdcad count?
regards
As I posted earlier...
HAHA - I'm not a hypocrite, but I just do not take the time to do full counts much anymore.

CONFIRMING any of what I suggest would be up to someone else's due diligence.

There are a few reasons but I focus my time on what matters most to me, the Super Trades At Retrace (STAR) trading system.

The following is an excerpt from the FAQ at Supertradesystem.com:
Quote:I loved your book on the The New Elliott Wave Rule. Do we count waves?

No, not a single wave! In fact despite my releasing of the new rule I do not even recommend the practice of Elliott Wave because of the advantages of STAR.

This is because of a discovery which is a key to the waves that the waves themselves generate. That same discovery, which is at the heart of STAR, led directly to the first new rule for Elliott Wave in 70 years.

This is powerful stuff but put your wave labels away neatly in a drawer and you can look nostalgically at them some time in the future.

Hear what Erwin L., a Supertradersclub member says:
[Comment in chat Re: New Elliott Wave Rule Book:]

“yes I read it. But STAR is much better, Elliott Waves WITHOUT the counting.
I think it’s brilliant.. I’ve never seen this way of viewing the waves Big Grin

Curious? You definitely should be if you are talking forex, futures or commodities.

The formation of waves by absolute precision in rules keeping is what's happening. But much else is going on as this is happening, even things which confuse counts due to our seemingly unavoidable tendency to fall down and use casual counting.

The chief thing in this is failure to recognize speed changing as the primary vehicle whereby markets create endless variety from only 3 possible formations.

STAR matches up to formations by using the speed control which Technical Analysis left undiscovered until STAR. This makes it possible to match the market at the local speed zone.

Smile

TS Hennessy
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-31-2015, 04:25 AM
Post: #6
RE: why
Thank you
Many pips and happy new year to all Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: