With today's higher high, and in significant agreement with The Eight Fold Path Methodology, we must simply allow that - where we were counting the waves up from the Dec 24th low as a zigzag sequence - that "five waves up" must now be counted instead of only the three-waves up. The daily chart now looks like the following, with each of the prior peaks labeled keeping its internal label from December 24th. Only the exterior labels have changed.
 |
| S&P500 Cash Index - Daily - Five Waves Up to Minute ((a)) |
Like it or not, waves (ii) and (iv) have alternation, and although wave (iii) does not break a base channel higher, it does not break any rules, and likely signifies just an impulse in a corrective sequence and not an impulse in a larger impulse. Clearly, it breaks Neely's guideline that all of wave three in a true impulse should be above a line from zero-through-two. But, that is a guideline.
The up wave from Dec 24th is exceedingly choppy, and has very short pullbacks, and this is characteristic of ((a)) waves, as well. That's the best I can tell from the data we have. And none of the interior waves from the October 2018 high to the Dec 24th low have changed their labels. The label at the Dec 24th low, itself has been changed from Minor 1 to Minor A. It might be expected that a B wave could reach 90%.
Have a good start to your evening,
TraderJoe
thanks joe.
ReplyDeleteso now the entire bear market is a 335/flat correction ABC? where A is done B in progress then impulse for C? the entire diagonal off the october top is not primary? If this is the case why couldnt A be entire correction?
Nope. There is more to come after the flat. Also, at this time I'm not saying how deep C:5 will go. A is likely not the entire correction because of the objections I cited about this being "an impulse in a correction, and not an impulse in an impulse".
Deleteexcellent
Deletealso, why did you count 123 off October high then change to abc, but off bottom you counted abc then switched to 123? trying to learn some basics from this last 6 month period.
ReplyDeleteThe lengths of the waves, and degree violations. Those were the only reasons.
DeleteTJ do you mean B:3 can make a new ATH if it wants to as a running flat?
ReplyDeleteexpanded
DeletePossible, but less likely.
DeleteThanks
DeleteET, Would you care to expound on how a flat fits into larger counts?
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Although I have an idea, I don't wish to comment on it at this time. First, we must see if the flat emerges. If it does, more information will be forth coming.
DeleteThanks
Deletealso, if your bearish count calls for higher highs near ath just as bullish count does then isnt this one of those times when all counts point higher ?
ReplyDeletewhoa .. let's see if and what minute ((b)) looks like.
Deletewhooaaaa !!! got it
ReplyDeleteSo if blue (v) isn’t abc did we get an extended 1 in (v) instead?
ReplyDeleteDidn't I write several times that I don't think the wave has the characteristics that include it being in a larger impulse?
DeleteNo you misunderstood I mean the internals of blue (v) todays and yesterdays price action
DeleteYesterdays 2788 was likely 2 of (v)?
ReplyDeleteAh, my apologies for the misunderstanding. Yes, this is still possible. It can not be ruled out until or unless 2,797 is overlapped downward again.
DeleteShould the first wave i be labeled in the first bar 2477.75? otherwise we may get degree violation for the wave ii and (ii)
ReplyDeleteSorry. I answered incorrectly the first time. Wave (ii) is a 'larger' degree than ii. There is no degree violation.
Delete(ii) is a triangle ?
ReplyDeleteOr a truncated zigzag. Those waves are so compressed, it's hard to know where it truly ends.
DeleteOn Jan 5th when I suggested that perhaps we were in wave B, possible retest of Jan '18 highs, or a new high if expanded flat, you replied no, its already larger than (4), and thus a degree violation. What has changed? Is there no longer a degree violation?
ReplyDelete1. I don't think we are in the Intermediate degree as you suggest.
Delete2. The degree would be larger, making a new wave lower.
3. A diagonal is 'still' a possibility, but when the up wave became a "five", then it suggested another wave higher is possible.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I understand what has changed to allow the possible flat now, but before it was a degree violation. Why is it possible now, not then? What has changed to allow it?
DeleteThanks
1. sorry if this is a stupid question
ReplyDelete2. I understand the reason for changing the move up from December lows to a 5 wave ((a)) instead of ((a))-((b))-((c)).
3. I'm curious why this ruled out the overall count of a leading diagonal down. If we have a large retracement ((b)) followed by a ((c)) that doesn't extend too far past ((a)) high, wouldn't that be a zig-zag for a valid diagonal 2. Is the leading diagonal now impossible or just less probable?
Not stupid. It doesn't yet. It just became 'less likely' with the five waves up. It remains my alternate.
DeleteHello Joe-- Thank you for your passion to teach and for the perspective! About a month ago I posted for the first time with concern around the price gaps that were left behind above when the selling began last October near the ATH. It will be interesting to see how the next few weeks play out, but this certainly presents a premise for how those gaps may fill - without hitting a new ATH - prior to downturn that leaves no top gaps for those algos to target. Appreciate learning from everyone here, will keep watching and learning.
ReplyDeleteI've never seen a wave 3 violate the 0-2 trendline in such a way that the entire 3rd wave (after i of 3) was on the wrong side of the line, and where v of 3 truncated (which is what happened in DOW, RUT, and NYA.) I've also never seen a wave 3 where the volume completely evaporated. For those reasons, I'm counting the rally as an 11 wave triple zig-zag.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMblcta: i think you have a good idea here. Could you post a chart?
Deletetacharts:
DeleteThere are no rules that dictate that a corrective wave must channel, no matter if it subdivides by 3,7, or 11.
Tom E:
If you look at Joe's chart, you'll see that he has labelled 13 waves. If you eliminate what he has labelled as iv and v of (iii), then that leaves you with 11 waves. Just count those 11 waves as abc-x-abc-x-abc.
Mblcta: Thanks. Your count looks good to me.
DeleteAn evaluation from Joe would be valuable.
@mblcta, @Tom E., @tacharts, @marc spungin; I have found one other count that respects Neely's 0 - 2 trend line. It was actually posted by Billy yesterday, and I couldn't see the whole thing, so now I will post it using MotiveWave.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJoe, from one of your comments above, you have not ruled out that this is wave 1 of an impulse with waves 2-5 still to go?
ReplyDeleteSure. This is one reference example of what it may look like.
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/EDnq9Bn
Tom E
DeleteSorry, misread your response. Thought were looking for a triple zz example, lol.
My bad.