Monday, January 21, 2019

Revision to Short Term

Thanks to two of the regular commenters on here, the short term chart has been revised for a particular reason. I couldn't find the specific reason why for several days, but now I have. First, here is the chart.

S&P500 Cash Index - Half Hourly - Revision

So, again, as per yesterday's comments, the time of the wave labeled as T (iii) is simply "too long in time" to be a sub-wave of a minute ((c)) wave up. That is because it is "longer in time" than what was formerly the minute ((a)) wave, up, and now shown as minuet (i). And that is not allowed. That means this whole wave up is more likely an impulse wave up as halting and awful as it was - and is.

In the above count, wave (iv) is also just slightly longer in time than wave (ii). And you know what that means too! It means that in the prior ((a)), ((b)), ((c)) count upward - yesterday's 30-minute chart, then, as second wave, a sub-wave,  it would also have been longer in time than it's larger degree ((b)) wave which is also not allowed. And, that problem gets worse if you try - in the old ((a)), ((b)), ((c)) count - to move (i) of ((c)) backward in time. Then, you violate the degree labeling between ((b)) and (ii) all the more. That is simply not allowed.

The time relationships above are: T(iii) > T(i), and T(iv) > T(ii). That is not a problem because these waves are of the same degree. And I don't see any time or price degree violations in wave (v), as long as wave blue ii is a FLAT wave. This chart also resolves the issue with the (iv) to ii trend line not cutting off any part of wave iii of (v).

Further, I want to assure you that wave (iii) is NOT being counted as a diagonal, just an impulse in which it's wave iv has a higher -b wave. We know it is not a diagonal because it's low was not exceeded lower.

So, the assumption is this wave is now the minute ((a)) wave of the diagonal wave 2.

Again, just as in the diagonal count, I do not like altering the count. But, when the potential diagonal invalidated, the count had to be changed. And when price or degree labels have been violated, then the count must similarly be changed. However, the count does make a particular prediction, and that is that since wave (iii) is shorter than wave (i), that wave (v) must be shorter than wave (iii). So I have shown wave (iii) at it's absolute maximum possible height for measuring purposes.

Thanks to the proponents of the impulse count for sticking to their guns. For those of you that have not seen one before, the wave (iv) triangle - in which price goes right into the apex - is what Neely calls a "non-limiting triangle". That means, on exit, price is NOT limited to the width of the triangle. Prechter also cites a triangle of this type in his book.

Have a fantastic rest of the Martin Luther King holiday and celebration of his life!
TJ

P.S. After the open on Tuesday, the market fell such that the widest width of the triangle (iv) was exceeded lower. As far as I can see, this calls for a change of wave degree, and minute ((b)) may be underway. Chart below.


S&P500 Cash Index - 30-Minute Chart - Width of wave (iv) Triangle Exceeded Lower

P.S. # 2 - Only posting this one because it is one of the finest examples of a leading contracting diagonal off of the top you will see,

ES E-Mini S&P500 Futures - Half Hour - Leading Diagonal and Five Count

Current count is good until 2,615, or 5 becomes 3. Notice in the above chart, the time relationships in the waves. Wave ((v)) down, consumes less time than wave ((iii)), down. And wave ((iii)) down is shorter in time than wave ((i)). Further, wave ((iv)) is shorter in time than wave ((ii)). Of course, the same is true of the price relationships, but one should really cement in their mind this picture of a contracting diagonal as it really is 'ideal' in every manner.

86 comments:

  1. RE POST WITH CORECTIONS

    DISTILLING DOWN THE POSSIBILITIES

    Sometimes EW is more predictive and sometimes it is less predictive. It is my opinion, and the only opinion I will offer, that this is one of the times that EW is less predictive. I will attempt to enumerate the possibilities as I see them in a logical way.

    THE FACTS:

    It is irrefutable that we have 3 waves down form the Oct 3 top.

    The internal counts of the motive waves (the down waves) are unclear. Some want to count them as 5’s and other’s want to count them as 3’s. This point will only be resolved and clarified with the passage of time when the larger degree pattern develops.

    We are smack dab in the middle of an extremely wide range between the Oct high and the Dec low which leaves room for a number of possible patterns to develop with no close by invalidation points.

    POSSIBILITIES

    I view the possibilities as being divided into 2 camps.

    The Oct high was “The Top”
    The Oct high was not “The Top”

    OCT WAS “THE TOP” POSSIBILITIES
    We would be operating with a downward count scenario. Due to overlap, an impulse has been eliminated. That leaves only one other possibility.

    1. A leading diagonal with wave 1 down complete and wave 2 up in progress.

    OCT WAS NOT “THE TOP” POSSIBILITIES

    Under this scenario we would be presuming that the Oct top was Int (3) rather than Int (5)
    We would then be evaluating a Int(4) correction in an upward count.

    1. The 3 wave move from the Oct high was a (5-3-5)zigzag representing all of Int (4).
    2. The 3 wave move from the Oct high was a (5-3-5)zigzag representing the first leg of a double zigzag.
    3. The 3 wave move from the Oct high was a (3-3-3) Minor1 of an Int (4) triangle.
    4. The 3 wave move from the Oct high was a (3-3-3) the first wave of a flat or complex Int (4)

    I’m quite sure there are endless ways to pick apart each of the listed possibilities and quite frankly I’m really not interested in hearing them. These are the possibilities as I see them and you of course will do your own evaluations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the count (see Daneric's second chart) where Int (3) is the October top, then it's Minor 5th wave is longer than all of Intermediate (1) which is not allowed. A smaller degree wave 'can not' be longer than a larger degree wave. If you would have read my comments on this earlier, it could have saved you a lot of typing.

      Delete
    2. Who is Daneric? I'm not following along. I'm still holding out October wasn't the top. Reasons based on my Monthly chart 1. RSI has not dropped below 40. 2. EWO has divergence but hasn't reached 4th wave minimum. 3. Price crossed over 34 ema and has gone back over.
      In reading Constance Brown I think I've understood her to say a 3 wave down sequence can only be a flat or expanded flat. From October that was all we had 3 waves down not 5.
      My chart B wave doesn't have to have a new high but it can.
      https://www.tradingview.com/x/PIvGxGlC/

      Delete
    3. @Bill, @P_T; in case you don't know Daneric's site, here is the address.

      http://danericselliottwaves.blogspot.com/

      Copy and paste link as needed. Look at the second chart there today. It is what P_T is proposing. But, blue wave 5 within (3) is longer than all of wave (1). Not allowed.

      Constance Brown is not correct. She is 'partially correct'. I clearly showed you in this chart how many diagonal waves lower can start with three-waves down. And I showed it in 'real time'.

      http://studyofcycles.blogspot.com/2018/10/gap-up-gap-fill-lower-low.html

      TJ

      Delete
    4. Thank you for the link. Looks like I need to study degree labeling. I didn't think Daneric's (4) could end where shown. I thought waves within a larger degree could extend and extend.

      Delete
    5. Joe, thanks for the update. If this is an impulse there is a chance that this is the start of a wave 5 isnt it? Only time will tell. From another technical perapective a Zweig thrust occurred since this bottom which is bullish and Lowrys a well known site noted that the recent activity from the low gave a strong bullish buy signal with 2 90% up days consistant with new uptrend but not a new Bull market. Interesting note you made of Daneric who seems to follow EWI. DOES he ever deviate from them? Thanks Sam

      Delete
    6. Sam, 5 waves up could be start of a zig zag.

      Delete
    7. Everyone wants to be bullish in that case why am I wrong to stand aside. We corrected on the weekly we broke the previous 4th wave 2532. We are still below the alligators mouth and below fractals @ 2815 and 2800. There isn't a reversal signal at the lows.
      https://www.tradingview.com/x/9R98DVOC/

      Delete
  2. Thank you Joe. It has been very educational the process of analysis of that days and the change justified from a-b-c to the 1 ...5.

    This evidences that the control of the degrees is a big tool to find the north.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Joe!
    I know you have minor 2 as a running flat as the alternate because of the failure wave, but we are approaching 61.8 and we have an impulse, doesn’t this change the odds to maybe ~50/50?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I 'do not' have minor 2 as a running flat as the alternate. I don't know where you got that from. The reason I do not is that it's ((b)) wave would be longer in price than all of Minor 1. And that is 'not allowed'. You 'can not' have a lower degree wave which is longer in price than a higher degree wave.

      Delete
    2. 13/1 post ”overlaps” second chart, but nevermind it’s a degree violation as you say

      Delete
  4. I am impressed! I do not know a lot EW analysts with the integrity to actually modify their counts when warranted by the clear price action. They always have some lame excuse to try and justify the error. FWIW, the triangle as the penultimate wave is one of the few patterns that the banksters have been unable to negate at will so I think this one has great potential.
    Are there any experts on lunar cycles on the forum?
    I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on why the full moon and lunar eclipse did not see a market low as so many of them predicted. We also had a Bradley turn date on Friday that did not pan out. I do understand that these are permitted a +- few days of leeway. Thank in advance for any responses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will always follow the rules. I will follow as many guidelines as possible, and I will always follow the definition of wave degree, when I see it. I am just becoming more knowledgeable of the meaning of degree, so sometimes I don't see it as quickly as I should. But, I'm working hard on that. I'm not perfect. I already know that, so it's not about my ego. It's just about trying to get the correct count and predict the correct direction.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Joe.
      I appreciate your generosity and humility more than you know...truly refreshing..

      Delete
    3. Verne, yes, I know, but I'll not share here, weird women reading. Drop me your email at my blog if you like. Cheers.

      Delete
  5. I like how this looks next to TJ recent count update...u the man TJ!

    https://www.tradingview.com/x/sctpX5il

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joe, thanks for hosting this site! I have been working on learning how to trade for about a year now and just discovered Elliott wave about 5 weeks ago. I started with the "Elliott Wave Principle" by Frost and Prechter and then followed 4 sites including yours.

    I was quickly confused because all 4 sites have drastically different counts depending on where they put the October highs so I've been tracking several possibilities.

    None of the other sites stick to the size (price or duration) of the waves of smaller degree cannot exceed equivalent waves of higher degree. For example, most people seem fine with 2 of (3) being a larger price movement than (2). I didn't see these in "Elliott Wave Principle" (unless I missed it). Is that the Neely method I read about in a recent post of yours?

    Would you recommend that as my next source of study on the subject?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for writing in. The Unknown account is generally not replied to. Please select a user name for a response.

      Delete
  7. Thanks Joe, one step at a time to figure out where this upward movement for ((2)) could end. If we complete the impulse for A, we (or at least I) will not really be able to project a C wave until Wave B ends.

    I have tried looking for it today but cannot find it. The invalidation for a 2 of diagonal - would it be 1) something other than a 3 wave / corrective pattern and or2) a new ATH? This A wave impulse (if it confirms) up is close to being bigger than A down and has already crossed the 50% retrace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Essentially, yes. And we don't even 'know' where minute ((a)) ends yet either. We're working on that.

      Delete
  8. joe
    nice work
    looks better with your identification of a specific triangle. lets see what comes next. we are having a real litmus test of the wave degree work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. also
      from the location of (iv) the futures looks like complete diagonal but have not finished analyzing

      Delete
    2. finally, any chance at all wxyxz. the long waves are all same degree in that case.

      Delete
    3. @Marc; virtually no chance of wxyxz as there are no overlaps. The hallmark of a multiple zigzag is 'almost always' overlaps (x with -a of w) that what makes counting an impulse impossible. We do not have that here. Further, there is no chance of a diagonal lower, unless 2 is a relatively simple zigzag - though the b wave of that zigzag can be a flat.

      Delete
  9. Thanks Joe for your revision and always sticking to the rules. Given that you now see this as an impulse wave, are you expecting a new ATH?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jay, welcome. No new highs. Please see previous comments above as to why

      Delete
  10. as far as count from 2008
    joes been clear its 5 up.
    as am I.
    If you apply 1 guideline - - the (0-2) line cant cut off wave 3 - -
    and apply it to every wave 2, Then you are left with this... https://imgur.com/a/Bp4iuS9

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and the blue line EWO is 100% perfect

      Delete
    2. Note that wave 5 cant be extending, with the recent bottom as wave 2, it will have degree violations.

      Delete
  11. Joe look for an expanding diagonal for wave 5 that is complete when you have time or desire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read prior day comments down legs probably not zigzags

      Delete
  12. Repost with username:

    Joe, thanks for hosting this site! I have been working on learning how to trade for about a year now and just discovered Elliott wave about 5 weeks ago. I started with the "Elliott Wave Principle" by Frost and Prechter and then followed 4 sites including yours.

    I was quickly confused because all 4 sites have drastically different counts depending on where they put the October highs so I've been tracking several possibilities.

    None of the other sites stick to the size (price or duration) of the waves of smaller degree cannot exceed equivalent waves of higher degree. For example, most people seem fine with 2 of (3) being a larger price movement than (2). I didn't see these in "Elliott Wave Principle" (unless I missed it). Is that the Neely method I read about in a recent post of yours?

    Would you recommend that as my next source of study on the subject?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The topic of 'wave degree' is specifically covered in the Elliott Wave Principle, in the section on "Wave Degree and Nomenclature". You can learn more on this topic in the audio interview with Glenn Neely on his site at this link. Copy and paste as needed.

      https://www.neowave.com/interviews/interview-201710.asp

      TJ

      Delete
  13. Joe,
    One of the new (for me) and really practical EW stuff I am learning from you is the principle of degree(s) in wave labelling. However I am getting a bit confused lately.
    Taking the example of Daneric's wave count, if [@3.29pm] "blue wave 5 within (3) is longer than all of [red] wave (1). Not allowed." does this apply also to blue 3? Alternatively, if intermediate red (3) or intermediate red (5) extends, couldn't it be possible one of the minor [blue] waves e.g. minor [blue] 3 of intermediate [red] (3) be longer than intermediate [red](1)?
    Further, if intermediate (1) is from a "low" base (667 for S&P) and recent prices are a significant multiple of that, can we not expect the a minor wave in intermediate (3) or intermediate (5) to be potentially longer than intermediate (1)? Would the degree construct apply more to log charts? I suspect I've missed a big chunk somewhere along the line but please help clarify my confusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The topic of 'wave degree' is specifically covered in the Elliott Wave Principle, in the section on "Wave Degree and Nomenclature". You can learn more on this topic in the audio interview with Glenn Neely on his site at this link. Copy and paste as needed.

      https://www.neowave.com/interviews/interview-201710.asp

      TJ

      Delete
  14. Looks good! Maybe i am early, but its possible that red wave (v) is already finished, because there was a possible blue wave iv in the overnight futures (Maybe a failed v at the close on friday in the cash-market?). Regardless, the next larger downmove is near.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Very possible frommi.
    If you are correct, thst gap higher in VIX should remain unfilled forthe next few weeks. Ahead of a third wave down, I would expect it to at least act as support on a final fifth wave up. A closure of the gap with a lower close would be inimical to the immediate bearish case imho, but it sure does look like some foxes are steadily accumulating bullish vol positions...😉

    ReplyDelete
  16. TJ - A quick question regarding a 2017 post you did.
    You were reconciling a count from 2016 bottom. Your chart is as follows:
    https://imgur.com/RrrjXnR

    I have shown a current chart, and price has reached precisely where your "4" projected.
    https://imgur.com/lfU0vX3

    Could this indicate that we are actually in (or have completed) 4 as shown on your chart? I thought this was quite interesting.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the requirement in that original chart of mine was that (4) overlap (1), and it has not done that - except in the $NYA. Also, there was a later discovered degree violation in that chart, when((v)) later became longer than A which is not allowed, because ((v)) is supposed to be a smaller degree sub-wave of C, but it became larger than A. Not allowed.

      Delete
    2. Well, it was a nice example of a TL projected into the future acting as support for a bounce/reversal if nothing else. Thanks

      Delete
  17. Joe,

    I might have misread your post yesterday but trying to understand the particular prediction "since wave (iii) is shorter than wave (i), that wave (v) must be shorter than wave (iii)."

    In your chart above I see wave (iii) longer in time (48 bars) than wave (i) (33 bars) therefore wave (v) would typically close to equal in time (33 bars) of wave (i). Unless you mean that wave (iii) is shorter in price than wave (i) and wave (v) should be shorter in price?

    The other question I have is why did you decide to use a 30 minute chart instead of a 45 minute chart since the 45 minute would be closer to the 120 to 160 candles for the EWO to work. With a 45 minute chart it seems that wave (v) may have peaked already since it is slightly longer in time than wave (i). However, today the price remains in the channel.

    Thanks again for all of this great work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Yes, price. 2) only time frame to show that (iv) is longer in time than (ii).

      Delete
    2. Joe,

      Thanks... that makes sense since I was struggling to show (iv) longer than (ii) on my 45 minute chart.

      Delete
  18. If the banksters continue their recent pattern, they will fill this morning's gap. I expect sky high futures to spook the early bears, ideally followed by an outside reversal day. You will know a major third or C wave has arrived when the initial wave down demolishes multiple contested pivots. Best of luck to everyone!

    ReplyDelete
  19. ES just thrust out of a triangle lower.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the trust from the triangle.

      https://invst.ly/9up5h

      TJ

      Delete
    2. As far as I can tell, we have had a degree change lower. A chart was added to this post, as a post-script.

      Delete
    3. mentioned S&P futures looked done last night - diagonal i believe

      Delete
    4. Yes, a diagonal in the hourly futures to finish wave (v) is possible, countable, and does not violate any rules. The zigzags in the down waves a little hard to count, but possible.

      Delete
  20. and now lets confirm we have at lest an impulse down on cash or futures

    ReplyDelete
  21. TJ-
    My lack of proper syntax notwithstanding, and looking strictly from a indicator point of view, could we be seeing the following? Thanks for considering.
    https://imgur.com/QctZjip

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Addendum: This assumes the entire move up from Dec 26 is 3-3-3-3-3.

      Delete
    2. While a pullback to the channel is possible, it is likely the ((b)) wave for all of the degree reasons above, and the slight truncation which tends to indicate the end of an ((a)) wave and not the end of a third wave.

      Delete
  22. I added a second P.S. today to show a possible five-count off the top in the futures.

    ReplyDelete
  23. fyi - ES futures 30-min, now have an upward degree violation; upward wave is longer than 2.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Probably the cleanest impulse I can see is on the DAX futures (1.9%). Retrace for 2 was 41%. Currently in 1 of 3 IF we have a major top in place. Another count that is still in play:
    https://imgur.com/HYXk7iV

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Billy .. I have already addressed that count. As a sub-wave 4 is larger than all of your higher degree wave B. That is a clear degree violation and must be discarded.

      Delete
  25. OK every one - thinking caps on! Does this count create any degree violations?

    https://invst.ly/9ur8g

    It could be ((a)), ((b)), ((c)) to Minor 2 of the larger daily diagonal.
    TJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm trying to resolve why we have a diagonal at the high??!!

      Delete
    2. yes. thats what i called wxy, w was a, x was b, y was c .... should have sent a chart... checking after close for you thanks

      Delete
    3. Only problem in price and time I can find would be ii bigger than ((b)), but not sure if this is a violation of degree??

      Delete
    4. a subwave of a bigger than c.

      Delete
  26. I view the move up from Dec. 26 as a complete rising wedge. So ascending diagonal triangle to A of 2 or 2? Is that within rules?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Okay, thank you ET regarding that ED I presented. Will scrap it.
    At the lows here the DOW has a very nice 2.618 relationship between 1 of 3 and 3 of 3. If she doesn't break down further my guess is she will try and limp up to the 24350 area for the "4". The prior 4 is also in that area and would make 4 of 3 roughly the same size as 1 of 3. Interesting whether she gyrates in the 4 until the cash market opens tomorrow or whether she gaps down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should specify that I am referencing the DOW futures.

      Delete
    2. DOW past the 24350 area to 24400. 160 points off the low. Possible "overnight" triangle in the works. That would work regarding similar net sizes between 2 of 3 and 4 of 3. Earlier I said "… would make 4 of 3 roughly the same size as 1 of 3". Should read "... same size as 2 of 3".

      Delete
  28. Joe is this possible this wave down is just (iv) as long as(i) is not violated TY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think so. The S&P500 and Russell did not confirm the Dow's higher high on Friday. I think we had a legitimate failure at the high. Also, the S&P500 never busted an hourly channel upward.

      Delete
  29. By my count, we've had five waves down, and when I called the "degree turn" that was "a" of an expanded flat upward, the lower lows were "b" of the expanded flat upward, and the last five waves up were "c" of the expanded flat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Today's up wave was a 38% retrace, the minimum needed.

      Delete
  30. Wow ET! Just for clarification are you saying that was 1 & 2 done with 3 down on tap?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or A down, and B, up, with C on tap; if we are still making a "b" wave lower.

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

    ReplyDelete