Market Indexes: Major U.S. Equity Indexes were higher; RUT, NQ (futures) DJ Util lower
SPX Candle: Higher High, Higher Low, Higher Close - Trend Candle
FED Posture: Quantitative Tightening (QT)
It's not for sure yet. There still is some room. But, if the Russell 2000 were making a diagonal instead of a triangle, then it 'can' be counted as completed.
 |
| Russell 2000 Futures - Daily - Completed or Nearly Completed Diagonal |
Remember, in such a count, wave (v) must remain shorter than wave (iii). In the above count, the b wave of (i) is a flat, but the a,b,c within (i) would be a zigzag. The other waves seem like pretty clear zigzags. In the above count each of the waves (i), (iii), and (v) does make a higher high than it's predecessor - showing their motive character.
With regard to the S&P500, today's gap up wave becomes very important. We were able to count a five wave impulse upward today that could finish the wave, but downside price movement was not enough to create an outside reversal day down. So, while price movement could continue lower tomorrow, the failure to close the gap today leaves a possibility of a higher high, yet. More on that one later.
Tonight, the ES futures settled above their upper Bollinger Band for the fifth consecutive day in a row The odds of this happening (assuming stock prices are distributed normally) are exceptionally low - about 1%. Of course, we almost all know stock prices are not distributed normally, and instead have "fat-tailed" distributions. The large prices movements - both positive and negative ones - happen more frequently than the normal distribution would predict. This is why an occurrence of this type, with only about 1% odds of happening by random chance, can happen right in front of your eyes.
Tonight might be another one of those good nights to check in on the futures a couple of times to see if anything invalidates in the after hours.
Have a very good start to your evening.
TraderJoe
I remained truly stunned by how absolutely inattentive the herd is to the remarkable extremes we are witnessing,the B band price action you cite being one of many.Frankly, I am starting to wonder if even a regression THROUGH the mean is going to be sufficient to correct the enormity of what the banksters have wrought!
ReplyDeleteIn above chart diagonal leg (i) is greater than i. Is this a degree violation ?
ReplyDeleteIt is not bigger than iii and so I don't think so. But it's a very good question and hard to find a detailed discussion of this topic anywhere.
DeleteJust went through Glenn Neely's latest interview where he talks about degree constraints. At the beginning of the interview, he clarifies that price/time degree constraints are neo-wave rules added by him. Let me know if you may have seen price/time degree rules elsewhere in Elliott wave literature.
DeleteJoe, take a look at these measurements.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/HDivot618/status/950738314897768448
A question completely outside of this topic. Why does a lot of people call primary wave 2 -- A wave down from 1219.80 to 1010.91 and wave B up from 1010.91 to 1370.58 -- a valid count? Doesn't that violates maximum wave B allowed?
ReplyDeleteB waves have no maximum, by rule. For example, the most common people think of is 1.382 to start an expanded flat. But there is also 1.618 which can start a running triangle, or even 2.618 which can start a running flat. These are documented better by Neely than by Prechter.
DeleteThat makes absolutely no sense to me that simply is a violation of the rules. I believe 1370.58 is primary wave 1. The problem with adding rules, beyond the 1.382, to wave B will loose you in getting the count correct and that is exactly what has happened. Most people kept on thinking primary wave 5 was wave 5 of intermediate wave 3 because of calling primary wave 1 at 1219. I think I will post my own count shortly myself on Stock Chart or Trading View charting sites. Regardless I absolutely love and respect your work and highly regard it as amongst the best Ellioticians on the world wide web. Pretchter's ElliottWave is second best. :)
DeleteI'm not trying to mislead you. B waves have a "guideline maximum" of 1.382 - for the expanded flat case - in The Elliott Wave Principle by Frost & Prechter. There is no 'rule' stated for any B maximum. It would not be a good idea to transpose a guideline into a rule.
Delete