One of the readers, Gerald, wrote in to say that my previously published Dollar Index Count was messed up. (The incorrect chart was the second chart published at this LINK.) He said that according to my own degree wisdom .. lol .. then there is no way the third wave, minuet (iii), could be correct because it was larger than wave minute ((i)), and that, he pointed out, was a degree violation. Oh, he wished me Happy Holidays to boot!
He was correct, and I was wrong. And that is my first gift to you. I will always admit, when - by following the rules - that either my logic, my count and/or my emotions are just plain wrong at the time. Again, I further confirmed to him that since the expected post-pattern behavior of a large scale decline did not occur after wave minute ((v)), that this further indicated why the original count was incorrect.
My second gift to you is to offer congratulations to Gerald, and to all like him - who have been trying to piece together this puzzle of degree labeling - it is hard, tedious and laborious work. And it sometimes conflicts with other sacred wave-counting cows. Please accept that I know what is going on in your minds - for those of that truly care about wave labeling.
My third and Fibonacci final gift to you is to show you what I now think to be the correct count on the U.S. Dollar Index - with proper degree labeling. It also led me to an inescapable and unexpected conclusion. It is one that really twisted my head. I said, "nah, that can't be right - can it?" And that's exactly what proper degree labeling should do. It should set your mind apart from all the other casual analysts looking at the wave.
 |
| US Dollar Index Futures - Two Day Chart - Degree Labeling Corrected |
Now, in all fairness, our dear Gerald did not off the solution to the problem, but I will try to. The descending order of degrees in this wave labeling is the only way I can see to avoid a significant degree violation. In other words, Minor 1, at the upper right, is larger than minute ((i)), and minute ((i)) is larger than minuet (a) which is larger than sub-minuette i, which is larger than Micro (A). That is just as it should be. You will also note that minute ((ii)) is larger than any other downward wave on the chart.
And since Micro (C) at sub-minuette i is of the same degree as (A), there is 'likely' no degree violation. Remember, a "C" wave is a third-wave, just like a wave three is, and so it can be the sub-divided wave. And I have checked that there are enough internal sub-divisions within this (C) wave to construct it, with each of sub-divisions smaller than (A). Please note for any still skeptical that you can move the wave (B) over one wavelet to the right at the bottom in mid-April; it would be a "B failure" wave at that point. And then, I am virtually certain the sub-divisions inside of (C) would be the correct length.
Lastly, very early on, it looks like we are getting some of the expected post-pattern behavior with a lead-off "trend line break". Wonderful! Let's see if it develops into a 50 - 62% retrace or more. Certainly the MACD has declined on each peak, and that may mean, "The game is a-foot!" as one of my virtual mentors would say.
Merry Christmas all! And I hope Gerald goes easier on me in the New Year! Obviously just kidding. One of the big reasons I do this is that you all are teaching me many things, too!
Cheers for a bright Holiday Season!
TraderJoe
Joe, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year. Your incite and education is well appreciated here. To go on record awhile back I said it was a fibonacci 89 years since the 29 crash. Would be quite interesting it this bear follows suit. Merry Xmas Sam
ReplyDeletesure would!
DeleteMerry Christmas!
ReplyDeleteI think you made a mistake since wave iii is longer in time than wave ii, which is not allowed according to your rules for EDT/LDT`s?
Why can`t wave ((i)) be wave A and we are currently in wave 3 of C as an EDT?
The trendline that touches point (B) and wave (ii) in your chart was not violated with the latest move, it was exactly touched. Of course any low below 95.5 will invalidate this count.
I don't think you are understanding those rules correctly. Wave ((iii)) should be shorter in time than wave ((i)); wave ((iv)) should be shorter in time than wave ((ii)); and they are.
DeleteAny other count would be an 'alternate' because the MACD has 'already' turned lower. 'Possible' .. just an alternate.
DeleteThanks, that was helpful!
DeleteMerry Christmas and Happy New Year Joe!
ReplyDeleteThanks for everything you do!
Merry x-mas! So to understand correctly Post Minor 1, we shall get a ABC for 50-62% retrace to complete Minor 2.
ReplyDeleteWelcome Jay. Yes. That is my expectation.
DeleteJoe, I am confused now. If before iii of 3 can not be more than 1 in price ( I actually thought this was allowed because it was outside the
ReplyDelete1 2 i ii nest ) how can i, in the chart above, travel the distance in price it has when compared to (A)?
It seems to me you tackled the problem from right to left.
I was thinking we had a triangle form at the bottom given the big move up. whenever I see something like that I tend to think triangle or diagonal was prior structure. I was going to mention this but I am not 'there' yet, clearly, in my understanding of degree.
i is a larger degree wave than (A), and (C) ~ 2.618 x (A). I tackled the problem from several directions. I tried A in mid-Aug, followed by a, down, b, of B, up with a C down to follow. But seeing A in mid-Aug leaves one with exactly the same degree violation.
DeleteThen, I did indeed look at failed bottom structures - like an incomplete diagonal or a complex with a triangle ending. But neither of those fit well as the prior wave is five-down. The only one I could see what maybe the (B) failed at the bottom.
As long as the waves were on the chart, then I did tackle the problem from right to left, since there is a diagonal shape at the top. And, it still leaves the failed (B) option to make the internal wave lengths the right length.
In terms of 'post-pattern behavior' dollar continues to drop this morning. So, we'll see.
you fooled me with the color. it looks good.
Delete