Desperation and Rationale

Some people have asked me to produce an "impulse" count for the upward waves and to show why this does or not work following the degree labeling guidelines, and other considerations. At the moment I simply can not do that because the count just immediately produces degree violations of all types, and breaks Neely's 0 - 2 guideline.

But, I have been able to do the next best thing. Below is a count (which originates with me as far as I know) which wave rules and guidelines suggest is not quite correct, but which does meet degree labeling requirements. I present it only as an exercise for your thinking process regarding Elliott waves.

SP500 Cash Index - Daily - Best Try

So, let's assume you are just desperate to find those "five waves up" for some reason. If so, then degree labeling currently offers only one option that I can see, and that is a diagonal upward. If you will review the symbols you will find that all of the minute (( )) degree labels, the circled labels, are larger than minuet ( ) degree labels in the same direction, which are larger than the sub-minuet labels. Further, we discussed in previous comments how sub-minuet ii after the first minuet (b) fits degree guidelines if wave ii is a flat, and sub-minuet i ends lower than the peak. It is the net length of sub-minuet ii we are concerned about, not i. IF wave ii is not a flat, then it is a degree violation in this count - which would further tend to rule it out.

In addition to this count meeting degree labeling requirements, it also meets Neely's guideline of wave ((iii)) being entirely over the 0 - ((ii)) trend line.

But, the most significant problem with this count is that wave ((v)) is now longer in time than wave ((iii)), and that means the form of the diagonal is likely incorrect. Further, such a contracting diagonal would invalidate above 2,937 cash - where wave ((v)) would become longer than wave ((iii)) in price. And, such a contracting diagonal is likely not a fifth wave ending diagonal because fifth wave ending diagonals take place over their respective wave three's. Finally, wave ((iv)) in this count is not a clear and unequivocal zigzag. It might be a truncated zigzag, but part of it could be part of the next wave up, too. We usually don't have to question the zigzags in diagonals much - so this one makes us pause.

Another significant fact is  that often - on larger time scales - the retrace waves of a diagonal tend more towards 62 - 86% - and that does not appear here. That's not a deal-breaker though, we have seen examples where they don't. But, it does lend more caution to a count like the one above.

And then, there is the principle of equivalence to consider. Any diagonal can always be considered as it's triple zigzag counterpart - particularly in B waves. That's where we've seen it happen most. And that's because three upward zigzags are required in the diagonal.

One thing we do unequivocally know - by measurement - is that the top of the current upward wave simply can not be ((iii)). That is because a downward wave ((iv)) from that location would be longer than ((ii)) if it were to overlap wave ((i)), and that is not allowed by the rules.

It is for these reasons that I remain in the double-zigzag count to a B wave. I could spend every single waking moment producing incorrect counts and telling you why they are incorrect. But that just won't happen. I have showed you this one example to further clarify what the rules and guidelines currently say - and why.

Have a good start to the holiday weekend.
TraderJoe