A Focus on Counting the Elliott Wave
almost (iii) of ((c))in yy is 3rd wave of sequence wxy((c)) is 3rd wave of sequence thats a lot of 3s. I know its not impulse off dec low. so say we wrap up this summer all of B from dec low with 2 more large up waves. bulls with wrong count will be holding the bag at worst time.... just thinking ahead. But the recognition element of 3rd waves seems pretty compelling here for something big to happen.... and its also possible this setup will fail now with no alternation and surprise a lot of people
It's hard to surprise a clear invalidation level, and / or a change of degree. That's why they are there .. for objectivity.
Not to complicate things in an already convoluted situation where a corrective wave (not a w3) is running hundreds of points into aths, the critical overlap mentioned can be argued as a moot point if you take june contract for 11th and september contract for 26th. June contract has 2911.5 I think while sept had 2915.75. Later after third thursday of rollover month 2914.5 is from sep19. Anyways s&p is one of the most distorted indices where overlaps are hard to find while something like eurostoxx is distorted other way. Dax futs seem to be the happy medium.
Wrong-headed comment. It varies by US Index, too. The very broadly based Wilshire 5000, and is a cash index shows the clear overlap. And the Nasdaq 100 futures for September (alone) also shows the overlap, but not with the June contract - just like the ES. The Dow shows absolutely no overlap in cash or futures. Whereas, as previously stated, the Russell cash and futures also show the clear overlap. So, it is pretty much sector-related and contract roll-over related. Rather than saying the S&P is 'distorted', it is better to say that it is a specific blend of certain sectors, and it is what it is. That's why each index should be treated in it's count differently. Some will top at one time - others will top at a different time. The New York Composite - as a reminder - still hasn't even yet made an all-time high since Jan 2018.
If you look at this weekly dax chart you will notice that the triangle followed by 5th to ath from 2018 in s&p is nowhere to be found. It instead exists as a and b of A wave below previous ath. Subsequent B wave that is unfolding is still below ath. What is even more fascinating is that in this monthly stoxx chart prices of 2000> 2007 > 2017 etc. Perhaps there was no central bank love here. Money borrowed practically for free instead found its way to more lucrative indices. Any case ours not to reason why. Let the waves do the talking I guess.
Sal .. go easy on this site. The triangle in the DAX is a running triangle, (a) = Oct/Nov 2014, (b) = Jun/Jul 2015, and longer in time than (a), (c) = Jun/Jul 2015 to Feb 2016, as a complex wave, and longer in time than (b), wave (d) is up to the mid-2016 high, and wave (e) ends in late 2016, and overlaps the prior early 2015 high as required. They are 'different' indexes. Please take this to heart before I start spamming the rest of your posts. You are really creating needless work for me.
Thanks Joe for the weekend update. Very clear.I've been here for about a year now and commend your discipline in achieving an objective count no matter the degree. I continue to look forward to your posts (and other readers) as we seem to be at a critical juncture. That said, I have got to press on why you continue to dodge a question asked here multiple times by multiple readers. Given that the bottom of 2009 to Sep 2018 is a confirmed impulse sequence and we're currently in an ABC corrective structure, it implies that the previously said impulse is either some sort of a wave 1 or 3. Should we expect then to have at least one more multi-year impulse wave up taking us way beyond SPX 3000? If the answer is no then do we go back to drawing board on the rally since 2009 and perhaps the entire structure since 2000 top?The answer to that has profound implications to positioning for long term investing and really tests EWT principles on a large scale.
The word 'implies' is the problem in your question.
Can you be transparent with your answer? I think several of us reached a similar conclusion when a new high was made, that a "5" label was ruled out for that impulse.
I see you left us with food for thought with replies to both my question. I'll continue to simmer on why 'implies' is a problem. Meanwhile, I can't think of any way to have a 5th wave 'the top' not be followed by another impulse down other than a leading diagonal wave 1. This feels wrong as the b wave goes above wave 5, not sure if that's allowed. See my take at link below:Weekly SPX 1997 to Current: https://imgur.com/lFSMwhG
@TJ - 8:10 am. Higher high b wave in a diagonal breaks the rules for diagonal waves. Not allowed.
long term spx has multiple b wave highs after a major top. 1942 to wave 1 top then b wave highs until bull market resumes in 75/82. thats best analogy
ET & TJ, have learnt alot for your conversation. Great video ET. Thank you.Marc, I don't believe TJ wanted your opinion. Infact, your servility towards ET is almost embarrassing.
@KS .. thanks for the comment on the video, but, to the contrary, do not begin attacking other readers of this blog, or your account will be deactivated.
@marc - 7/7 1:25PM CST. I don't think I'm satisfied with that answer. Your response did cause me to ponder on something else pretty deep and 'out there'. Perhaps my question about how can 'The Top' be preceded by a higher high is moot because there is no such thing as 'the Top'. In other words, ALL bear markets are corrective moves (thus allowing for higher B waves). The market never impulses down because the very very long term (thinking 100s or thousands of years) the market is always suppose to make a higher highs due to inflation and compounding of earnings growth. Like I said, my theory is a bit coo coo and I look forward to why the word 'implies' is the problem in my question posed above.
@TJ 10:09 AM, you 'imply' a smaller sub-set from a larger Venn diagram and therefore the logic is arbitrary.
General question which I'm sure already has been answered somewhere deep in your blog. Should a impulse structure 'always' have corrective wave 2 & 4 be longer in time than the preceding wave 1 and 3? In other words, is this a requirement or just a guideline?Thx
Neely says requirement. Prechter says guideline. I have a different answer which is too long for a reply or a separate post. But I will provide you with a 'teaser'. Say you are expecting wave 4 to be longer in time than wave 3, and that does not occur. In other words, the market takes off out of wave 4 higher before the number of bars that wave 3 consumed. If that happens, then what does it tell you about the 'power' of the market?
The .618 of c:a from June 3, and of Y:W from December, along with the trend line connecting the 2018 tops are all between 3015-3025 SPX. So far in c we did 5 waves, with a somewhat frenzied finish to 2095, leaving some hourly and daily oscillator divergences.About a week ago, you answered a question that c:a is most likely <.618. Does similar relationship hold for Y:W, and if ES drops below 2952, does primary count become INT B complete?
Y:W 'can be' 0.618; if beyond there then Y:W = 1. It really depends on the length of any (iii) of ((c)).No, if ES drops below 2952, then only (ii) invalidates, and a five-wave non-overlapping minute ((a)) wave becomes the more likely count to the recent high. The pure 'lengths' of the waves allows it in the ES. And, the contract roll-over problem discussed above allows it. But that is the clear 'alternate' and that is because of the overlaps in some indices. Perhaps in those indexes minute ((a)) still forms as a diagonal.
So IF alt count THEN minute ((a)) is the subdivider, therefore minute ((c)) would be more likely to be <.618 : ((a)), therefore INT B primary target becomes about 3025 give or take - just a bit more than a marginal new high after ((b)) unless ((b)) is very deep.
https://commitmentsoftraders.org/wp-content/uploads/Static/ES_OPT.pngMay be a dribble of a short from the big boys.
The 'smart money'.
ET what can we know about time for INT C relative INT A and B? My first thought would be - expanding flat, A was about 3 months, call B 8 months for this exercise, C would be 21 months in 5 waves down.
https://www.neowave.com/qow/qow-archive-2.aspQuestion of the Week: 7/18/2005What are the TIME limits for wave-b of a Flat?Answer:Wave-b in a Flat will normally take 2-4 times longer than wave-a. There is no absolute maximum time limit, but if beyond 5-7 times that of wave-a, it becomes suspicious. The most important thing to remember is that if wave-b is substantially more time consuming than wave-a, then wave-c must be approximately half of the time of waves-a & b combined.
Thanks, this is good info. It would not apply for predicting duration of INT C in this case though, because B would be normal at ~2.6 * A.
Incredible how common degree violations are in the work of Elliott wave analysts. I always found it unsettling for obvious reasons,but every time I asked about it was blithely informed "the rules allow it". This is actually the first site I have encountered that pays any attention to the relative space/time dimensions of differing degree waves. No wonder most of their counts have little predictive value!
Here are some recent valid fractals, and the EMA-34 on the ES 15-minutehttps://invst.ly/b7c9yTJ
Market added another down fractal, and has not yet broken any up fractals.https://invst.ly/b7cfzTJ
Market added another up fractal.https://invst.ly/b7d7lTJ
First (red) down fractal back has been exceeded lower.
According to measurement in the futures, we can not go through the low of Friday, and maintain a diagonal. Therefore if the low is broken, a first wave ends here, and it would break the low in a third wave. Otherwise, the diagonal is ending, and ends in a slight truncation.
There are five valid waves down to the new (red) down fractal. And now?https://invst.ly/b7djhTJ
Market just exceeded last up (green) fractal higher). Probably a second wave - or more - higher.https://invst.ly/b7dnkTJ
TJ -Not looking to get wrapped around the axle with technical definitions. Simply looking to hear from the expert (you) to illustrate how claim 3 can still be applicable after you've made claim 1 and 2.1) SPX Impulse from year 2009 has concluded with a wave 5 finishing Oct 20182) The next leg is a corrective one of the same degree3) The leg after the 'next leg' will not be an impulse that takes us to new and much higher all time highs (above the current b wave top, TBD)
Replied to the wrong section, apologies. Should have been part of the ongoing discussion from yesterday.
combination, flat-X-?I'm certainly not an expert so I may be off
Re: item #3, I believe today I am showing you an item which is "not an impulse", live and in real time.
..and there are many, many more. jwtx12 mentioned just one. There are still others.
the flat-x-? and the many more you speak of would all be just part of the current corrective structure. I get that they can bring higher highs. My question is really about long term roadmap AFTER the current corrective structure finishes, whether it's a flat, flat-x-?, or some other complicated one.
@TJ .. I'm not ready to begin discussing the longer term count until we break the current up channel - the one from the Holiday video - lower, for obvious reasons.
the corrective structure can possibly have many 20% up and down moves i would suppose given its presumed degree.
Diagonal trend line has just broken higher.
Diagonal could also be tripple zz = 2?
If so the last c failed on DOW
.. just a regular non-overlapping fourth wave on the DOW cash?
Here's where the futures wound up at the settlement. Note how the EMA-34 acts as a 'chaos attractor' in the absence of significant news.https://invst.ly/b7e4wTJ
A new post has been started for the next day.