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.