Thursday, March 14, 2019

A Question

Is it true the count below has no issues with either degree labels OR with the third waves being completely above the 0 - 2 trend lines as per the Neely guidelines. Please study. I don't like to wind up violating either degree labeling or trend line guidelines, and this doesn't seem too.

ES E-Mini S&P500 Index Futures - Daily - Degrees in Place

Let me know your thoughts. This count was spurred by a comment in yesterday's post by trader Gerald who noted that (ii) is longer in price and time than b. This would fix that issue. Help us stay sharp, Gerald!

Have a good start to your evening,
TraderJoe

65 comments:

  1. so now what we have is a smaller degree move from red i to red ii is more in points than the larger degree black to black b.
    i still think that is not allowed. I am about to post a chart that I believe works. let me know when you think when I have it up. my service only allows daily and then 1 hour. I can't go and get 120 to 160 candles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depends where the triangle started and how it's (e) wave measures.

      Delete
    2. And it depends if red ii following b is a flat! As the net distance is what the measurement is.

      Delete
    3. Joe if you move your red i over to the left and allow red ii to expand as flat is red i to red ii less in points than black a to black b? if it is i believe it is valid.

      Delete
    4. wish i could have come up with this structure on my own been looking at it all day. one day i'll get it... i hope.

      Delete
    5. if red ii is flat that expands can red iv be a running triangle. that is not alternation.

      Delete
    6. if you look at a 1 hour. if you measure black b to red i (i have red i at 8:30 on 2/1) from red ii (i have red ii at 10:30 on 2/8) we get an immediate reaction at 1.618 extension. it is at 9:30 2/25. red iv would be at 8:30 on 2/27. then ending expanding diagonal is red v.

      Delete
    7. i have a question about expanding diagonal for my talked about red v above... while 5 > 3 > 1 and 4 > 2 in price. we do not see that in time. does it matter?

      Delete
  2. Here is my thinking.

    https://imgur.com/VkHWoyh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry I can't read any labels or degrees.

      Delete
    2. weird it works for me. on a daily I have it:

      jan 18 = a
      1/23 = b
      1/25 = 1
      1/28 = 2
      2/5 = 3
      2/8 = 4

      5th wave extends

      2/13 = i
      2/14 = ii
      2/20 = iii
      2/21 = iv
      2/25 = v = A

      3/8 = B

      we are in C

      Delete
    3. how much wave to finish C

      Delete
    4. Joe, is 3 to 4 in my count restricted in time by a to b? If it is then the count is not valid. I am unsure the answer to that question. as 3 to 4 is not directly after a to b but 1 to 2.

      Delete
    5. Can't have a three wave A without a 90% B:3. That clearly breaks the rules. Would have to be a double zigzag.

      Delete
    6. are i and ii smaller than 1 and 2?

      Delete
    7. i think they are restricted by 3 as that is the wave that immediately precedes. i may be wrong.

      Delete
    8. Joe, if i understand my a = 1/18 and b = 1/23 with A at 2/25. that being 3 waves. you are telling me because it is a 3 wave structure any B that follows needs to chew down to 90%? That would ~2393.

      Delete
    9. No matter how at least I meassure, red ii will be bigger than black b in price. And as you mentioned TJ ”we are not counting increasing extensions within a third wave in this count”. In a zigzag maybe the degree violations only can happen between A and C like a sub-wave of C bigger than all of A? B;s are B;s and ii and iv;s are ii and iv;s??

      Delete
    10. Here comes some more headache, I think Marc have posted something similair:
      https://imgur.com/gallery/nK62fzN
      Degree violations?!
      The reason I like this is because I think AMZN have at least a 10% move coming that should drag sp500 a few %:
      https://imgur.com/gallery/sGNEMND

      Delete
    11. Hmm that v needs alot of time to be bigger than iii in price and time....maybe that suits well with the triangle on AMZN?

      Delete
    12. Erik, if you draw a line from your b to your ii on your first link you are chewing through candles.

      Delete
  3. hi joe
    it's not so easy to find the right method
    already 3 months of increase
    when is the big fall?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you want to know? Price is still above the 18-day SMA is it not?

      Delete
    2. The massive corrective wave after the 1929 crash lasted five months...Nov to April. The markets almost made new highs in the Spring of 1930. The market continued down from April 1930 til June of 1932. 85% correction before the bottom was reached. The economic data coming in is horrible...it’s a worldwide epidemic. We are going into a Depression in my opinion. I don’t think any investor will prepared for a 80% loss or more.

      Delete
    3. A terminal trust up from a triangle will be the final wave if that occurs.

      Delete
  4. hi gerald
    what is your max high point before a fall?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dom, i am not comfortable enough in my understanding of all that is Elliott to answer.

      Delete
    2. dom, so many questions. Give us your thoughts, so like ratrot.

      Delete
    3. https://twitter.com/I_dont_know_but/status/1106552839369904129
      this individual should be banned from this site...he brazenly characterized the 49 victims in New Zealand as heathens...he went on to write, "Heathens are indeed pathetic and often sad"...he has obviously demonstrated that he is a wacko!

      Delete
    4. Poor ratrot, you're a heathen too of course. My words scare you. God scares you.

      And you clearly are pathetic and sad, as you view my tweets even after I blocked you, are you a masochist?

      Grab a dictionary, check the meaning of the word 'heathen', then report back.

      Delete
  5. Pbeck here - responding from phone.

    I copied this from one of TJ’s post in March 2018 (I saved the link accidentally and stumbled across it today). Thought it applied :

    My point is this. Markets can play with us. They will do what they need to in order to fake us out and get us headed in the wrong directions at the wrong time

    ReplyDelete
  6. The rally off the Friday low was 5 waver in my eyes, and those, if I'm not mistaken are either 1s or Cs of some kind. Not much pullback so far to tip the scales either way, though no higher high neither. Smarter waves can come up with the top calculation should we head to new highs (thus we've just experience a 1 from the Friday low - 2 now - versus we break down big, and some kind of top is in. That's my two-penneth wave counting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe,
    in an impulse
    suppose wave ((i)) has subwaves (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v),
    and wave ((2)) has subwaves (a), (b), (c)
    what if any are restrictions on (b)? Can it be longer than (i) (iii) and (v)?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. joe told me that count would have a 5th eave too long. ive been watching it aa well

      Delete
    2. 5 of ((c)) should take more time than 3 of ((c)) in this expanded diagonal, and if it does here, it will be very close to take more time than all of ((a)) which would be a degree violation?

      Delete
    3. Using your labeling, would we now be in B of(C) of (5)?

      Delete
    4. @marc, @tacharts; no I said that it is completely against the rules to have a flat fourth wave inside an expanding diagonal. Anf that's what is being shown, b of (4) is higher than (3) and that is against the rules. ALL of the waves of a diagonal 'must' be zigzags. I am starting to get tired of repeating myself.

      Delete
  9. Please look at this Nasdaq100 chart if you have time! I found an important overlap i believe:
    https://imgur.com/gallery/QnObVWm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know (ii) bigger than ((b)), but why should we compare a ii with a b?
      As long as th other b on the chart is smaller than ((b))?

      Delete
  10. tacharts, the b that followed your (3) it is not allowed to go
    over (3) in a diagonal.

    that flat would have a 3:3:5 wave structure everything in a
    diagonal is a 3 waves however the b wave in the 3 waves CAN
    be a flat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gerald, other than joe you appear to be most qualified to answer my post below. I'm trying to get clarity n rules governing the b wave and its subwaves within a second wave following a first wave.... can you help?

      Delete
    2. Marc, Joe posted something about gold a while ago. I posted how I thought the 2 was restricted. It was detailed and removed because I was wrong. I still can't answer that question. Therefore, I am sorry but I can not help.

      You can post charts I can look for irregularities if I see something I'll mention it.

      Delete
    3. that question was in regards to TIME of second wave. not size of second wave and its subwaves.

      Delete
  11. Joe,
    in an impulse
    suppose wave ((i)) has subwaves (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v),
    and wave ((2)) has subwaves (a), (b), (c)
    what if any are restrictions on (b)? Can it be longer than (i) (iii) and (v)?
    what about the subwaves of (b)?

    ReplyDelete
  12. DOW finally has a cross-over of the a wave in yesterday's potential triangle; let's see if the low holds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the DOW's potential triangle. The low of red a must hold for this pattern.

      https://invst.ly/aaiwi

      TJ

      Delete
  13. Joe, can you please address the b wave in second wave and your rules as it relates to wave degrees? Its impossible to study the chart posted as you advised without that knowledge. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joe, additionally how do you measure size of wave when it has a max or min outside of the first and lost point of wave. For instance expanded flat? is it from start to end of C or from top of B (expanded flat for instance) to bottom of C?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Start to end of C. (Known as the 'net distance traveled'.)

      Delete
  15. Nice going on the DOW triangle ET. I was going to say the YM has a 10 point upward penetration of its downward trend line that is part of its 209 point decline from its overnight highs, but 10 quickly turned into 50 then 100. (Somewhat forgetfully it didn't even bother with a retest of the trend line.) Triangle height is about 250 points (about 1%) and the breakout point was 25750ish so measured move would be the near the round number at 26000. C = A either side of the b wave triangle would be closer to 26100. PS: Boeing just piled on 3% upward in 15 minutes and that would be the chief driver. Also I noted earlier this week "don't be surprised to see SPX 2875 going into FOMC". That's top resistance. Initial resistance starts at 2845 so 2845 up to 2875 is my range.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the result of the triangle count. Did it take patience? You bet.

      https://invst.ly/aaj-e

      TJ

      Delete
    2. The sharp ones among you will note that, within the triangle, sub-wave d is apparently 'longer in time' that all of it's larger degree 'a' wave. Yet, it is smaller in 'points'. Quite interesting!

      Delete
    3. Joe, can you explain how that count is valid maybe in a separate blog post tomorrow?

      Delete
    4. @Gerald; the answer is really quite simple. Have a look at this chart of the same time period in the Dow FUTURES. It can't be counted as a triangle at all, and must be counted as a leading diagonal a, wave.

      https://invst.ly/aakbn

      Lesson - 'always' do the degree validation on the futures, because they trade around the clock, and use trading hours the cash market doesn't. Then, notice how the 'time signature' of the Leading Diagonal works out perfectly, with wave ((5)) less in time than ((3)) which is less in time than ((1)).

      TJ

      Delete
    5. yes, that chart I can work with. what would I do if it was say not the dow but an etf with no futures and I see that triangle. I am kind of stuck in how that works.

      Delete
    6. That's just one of the reasons why I don't count etf's. Ever.

      Delete
  16. How much longer is it going up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Until something overwhelms the central bank's ability to keep it going up.

      Delete
    2. Why do you ask? Price is still above the 18-day simple moving average.

      Delete
  17. A new post has been started for the next day.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Market was clearly consolidating gains ahead of a move higher...Lol! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No issue with that statement. Just don't add anything else to it!

      Delete