Pending a review of some additional wave label degree work, it is 'possible' that Minor 2 ended on Friday, as minute ((a)), minute ((b)) and minute ((c)) as in the chart below.
 |
| S&P500 Cash Index - Hourly - Three Waves Up to Minor 2 |
I am still studying this situation from a degree labeling perspective, but the question has to be asked, "why did the waves fail?". There is a remarkable Fibonacci relationship in this count : minute ((c)) = 38.2% x minute ((a)) to the pip. And clear Fibonacci relationships are common in corrective waves.
Price is now just shy of that daily declining trend line from the high. But certainly close enough, and diagonals like to adhere to their trend lines.
The very clear 50:50 alternate until there is further price development has to be that only the minute ((a)) wave completed at Friday's high, and we are now in the minute ((b)) wave down. We must take it step by step. If the ES futures find support at the 18-day SMA, then it is possible it would be a target for the minute ((b)) wave.
One precedence for the kind of count shown above might be the fact that both Prechter and Neely cite that there can be a wave such as a "failed zigzag". How can that happen if some of the internal waves of the ((a)) wave are not longer than the ((c)) wave - which fails? Interesting stuff.
Have a very good start to your evening.
TraderJoe
P.S. This morning's note is that there is a potential ending contracting diagonal to end the flat wave called from yesterday. The chart as it stands now, is below. The fourth wave of the diagonal has already been exceeded lower.
 |
| ES E-Mini S&P500 Index Futures - 30 Min - Potential Ending Contracting Diagonal |
Please keep in mind that due to the overall uncertainty in the count that (1) down, and (2), up, at this time might be (A), down and (B) up.
joe
ReplyDeletedec 20... we had a long b wave on the table, what if it was a b wave....
is that at all possible?
I did not. In fact at 9:10 am on 12/20 I told you that long 'b' wave would be a definite degree violation. Gonna drop it, yet?
ReplyDeleteonly reason i ask is it would tie up a few loose ends about this rallys strength thats all. thanks for the help
ReplyDeletei believe there is a b wave in
ReplyDeleteii of a
larger than
b - if you count it otherwise no problem.
iv is smaller than the unlabeled ((iv)) of i
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/a/wCr9ol9
ReplyDeleteMarc in a zigzag 2 and 4 should be single zigzags and not wxy so this latest pivot has to be A or 2 as TJ is saying.
ReplyDeletejoe, have you looked into the issues about b and iv
ReplyDeletePossible E-D for v of (c) of the flat from yesterday in the futures.
ReplyDeleteFourth wave of diagonal now exceeded lower.
DeleteChart added as a post-script today.
DeleteYep!
DeleteThe open VIX gap strongly hinted ramp up was corrective...😎
I mean ”in a diagonal”
ReplyDeleteSPX cash opening gap closed.
ReplyDeleteYesterday's low has been exceeded lower in the futures, and cash SP500.
DeleteThis result, taking out the low of a contracting ending diagonal upward in less 'time' than the diagonal took to form, provides 'proof' the diagonal is valid. Bulls now have to ask, "why is there a clear ending diagonal here?"
Deletethanks joe
Deletejoe
ReplyDeleteThank you for all the work you do.
if it is ABC what is the relationship of C to A or B.
welcome sfd .. ABC in which wave? There are a lot of them!
Deleteassume the wave up is A from Dec 2018, and now we completed wave B up, then C down just started
ReplyDeleteJoe
ReplyDeleteIn your PS Chart, how can ((i)) of C of 2 be greater than A of 2.
Isn't that a clear degree violation?
John,
Delete((i)) of C of 2 is 8 bars and A of 2 is approx 80 bars there is no degree violation that I see.
Degree is in time (bars) and price. 1 of C is near x3 the size of A (in the 30m chart). I think this is a violation or still do not understand it.
Delete@Tjchuck
DeleteDegree violation is primarily referred to price.
((i)) of C is much greater than the whole A wave (that goes roughly from 2623 to 2633)
What you are talking about is (I think) then time length of the whole (1) wave.
Yes I was looking at time. I will reevaluate with price.
DeleteNice work on the diagonal in futures ET. Today's wave down on the S&P 500 was shorter than yesterday's but put in a lower low. Today's wave down on the DOW did NOT make a lower low. IF the DOW needs to make a lower low the possibility is there that the market is now set up for 3 of 3 down or 3 of C down. I stress this is only a possibility. DOW futures did not create a diagonal like the S&P 500. Therefore yesterday's low in the DOW does not necessarily have to be taken out.
ReplyDeletelast 2 days is a better b wave than what we have been counting in abc of 2. there is some probability that 2 is not complete - a zigzag - with its impulse a already counted, and we finished b today, now on way to c of zigzag.
ReplyDeleteand failure of (c) wave of b of zigzag predicts strength
DeleteMarc using your idea of the market still being in the upward corrective wave following a downward impulse, as far as the futures market is concerned the corrective wave is about half the time size of the downward wave at the moment.
Delete… and (a) of b on the DOW was a 90% retrace. That index could turn into a triple top if we are still in b or 2 from the top.
Deletei have had crazier ideas
Deletelike in decmeber when i called the diagonal but was told we would never rally to 2601. patience required.
im only focused on waves since december low on spx.
DeleteNegating what I posted previously, I just do not see 5 waves down today. Now I am thinking this week's action is a 4th wave with the DOW putting in a running 4 with a higher low for its C wave.
ReplyDeletejoe please let us know when your rules call for a second wave to be longer in time than a first wave you havent shared much about that and said it depends.
ReplyDeletethis move up today has taken longer than second wave up yesterday - count cant be (i) (ii) ((i)) ((ii)) -
ReplyDeleteso wave 1 ended today at low or its an expanded flat in progress
joe
ReplyDeletein the futures contracting triangle
ii is lesser degree than 2
yet it is larger and consumes more time yhan 2
i believe iv may be larger than 4 as well
Marc, I think you meant leading diagonal forming 1 where ((ii)) is smaller in time than 2 ?
DeleteET is that a degree violation ? I see ((ii)) is longer than 2 in both time and price.
yes EDT
DeleteWe should check with ET on new post.
DeleteA new post has been started for the next day.
ReplyDelete