Here is what The Eight Fold Path Method - on the four-hour ES futures has to say about yesterday's up wave, and this morning's overnight down wave.
 |
| ES Futures - 4 Hr - Completed Wave Set |
We have posted this chart many times before. It is nothing new. With now more than 125 candles on the chart (well within the recommended 120 - 160), the Elliott Wave Oscillator went below the zero line, then above the zero line on a divergence. The subsequent overnight action has gone below the prior wave ((4)) in less time than that wave took to build, and so our interpretation is that this wave set is completed.
Per the New Year's Projection, below, these two waves were entirely anticipated. These waves would be (iii) and (iv) in the projection, below.
 |
| ES Futures - Daily Close - Projected |
If the market is to finish an impulse, then a further higher high should be made. If a higher high (or a very good attempt at it) is not made, and the channel starts breaking down and being successfully back-tested, prematurely, then we may conclude that Y and, possibly, Intermediate (B) ended with Thursday's high. Then (i) = ((a)), and (ii) = ((b)), and (iii) = ((c)).
So far, the only thing odd about an impulse is that if (ii) is actually minuet (ii) and not minute ((b)) is that the up wave should have formed a wedge and not a channel. That is because the wave labeled (ii) is only a 23.6% retrace.
We will remain flexible, patient and calm until a more complete picture emerges. Stay tuned.
TraderJoe
SPY 319 early next week for 4 and then up to SPY 270 by 1/17 for 5?
ReplyDeleteMeant up to SPY 370
DeleteNah .. Your comment on Dec 30th was, "Too many people looking for that 5th now. Top might be in." In short, I don't think you have a methodology, and are just commenting for comments sake.
DeleteYeh...these predictions seemingly pulled out of people's britches are truly hard to fathom with a "reason why"...
DeleteActually meant 327. Yea I said "might* be in. You have been saying for 3 months one more move up to that elusive "B" you have been calling for. My methodology is not perfect but it works 70% of the time. 100% transparency... I am short 1/4 of my position at SPY 315. Another 1/4 yesterday at SPY 324. March expirations with targets at SPY 305. I will buy SPY calls as a hedge if 319 is hit early next week that go through end of January with target SPY 327.If SPY 327 is hit before end of January I will add another 1/4 of SPY puts with end of March Expiration like the rest of my puts. Let's see how it plays out
DeleteI think you like drawing but don't trade
DeleteRelative to "me trading"..price is over the 18-day SMA, and the daily slow stochastic is still fully embedded. See the recap of Ira Epstein's Rules for trading at this link.
Deletehttp://studyofcycles.blogspot.com/2015/11/paraphrase-of-ira-epsteins-rules-for.html
There is a follow-on piece at this link.
http://studyofcycles.blogspot.com/2015/11/ira-epstein-example-part-2.html
You are free to buck that advice however you want. I try not to.
This is not a blog about trading or positions. It is a blog about counting the Elliott Wave - about which you have offered nothing.
Further comments about trading or positions will be removed from this site.
TJ
Offered nothing!? I told you the S&P averages 18% gains over a 12-18 month period once the first rate reduction takes place after steady rate increases. That was back in July I think and you scoffed. Yet now your "count" is in line with it. I told you every Elliot waver (including you) was looking for a big turn down when SPY was around 300 in November. Me on the other hand, I said bc of that the Market will rally to at least 315, which it has end some. You can go back and check my few posts here. If your readers followed you they would be living out of a box and if me, sailing on a yacht.
DeleteYou don't have an effective methodology because in order for it to be somewhat effective it should be effective at least 50% of the time. Your counts are right about 30% of the time at best. You just keep redrawing until it's eventually right. Anyone can do that.
I won't post my trades but if you start bragging that you got a count right after changing it 10 times like you usually do, I will be the first to call you out on it.
I remain insistent that this is one of the largest (B) waves on record, second only to 2002 - 2007. As such, it would be very difficult to count. I got it more correct than Prechter did. And I wrote them, and told them - in advance of the count playing out! Prechter has since recanted his count (on Dec 17th). Your comment was an "extrapolation of the past", and not about wave counting, per se. If you continue to "extrapolate from the past", then the market will never go down. So, good luck with your 'high and mighty' attitude. I'll just continue to be flexible, calm and patient.
DeleteI'm not high and mighty at all trust me. I'm humble and I hate BS. I make mistakes... The market is tough to navigate. I do think EW is nonsense though and a great Contrarian indicator when many have the same count.
DeleteAll I am saying is if all your site is about is counting waves then just post your analysis with all the numbers, letters and squiggles all you want. Just don't say you got a count right without saying where you were wrong because if you did that, you would be saying you were wrong way more than right....just post the chart with the analysis because like I said before, if you say you are right about a count, I will call you out on all the times you were wrong prior to getting it right.
..and if the count turns out correct, I will maintain a correct view in the 'long term', with 'twists and turns' in a complex wave. You can call me out on anything you want. I am trying to show people how to count waves correctly (see aka Tachyon @2:07, below) - as best as I 'understand' wave counting. And I am humble to admit there are aspects of it I am still learning - because all the books on EW don't cover a couple of phenomenon, yet.
DeleteThis has been a tough market to call. Another very good EW analyst, Avi Gilburt, has recently admitted that the market did indeed exceed his upside B wave targets and that he got it wrong. I think this in fact confirms that we are dealing with B wave action and they are notoriously difficult to call. I agree with you that the move down is probably corrective (failure to take out multiple round number targets in the first wave down) and that those calling for a move up to 3500 will likely be proven correct. Just my two pennies...
DeleteI personally disagree but I do have a strategy to play both sides. I see so many EW analysts now adopting the count supporting a pull-back and then rally to at least 3400 level by like May or June. I think they just pull the rug out sometime in the next couple of months and the "B" count ends up being right all along. Just fooled many.
DeleteI was surprised to see AVI actually admit being wrong
EWT and their analysts have been wrong for several hundred points now. And I believe they were looking for a final wave down at the December 2018 lows that never happened.
DeleteThey are so far defending 3200. The failure of this initial wave down to breach it argues for the move being corrective imho. Next test area 3150. We take that out and I start to get real interested!
ReplyDeleteDaily chart now looks to me like an expanded flat for a fourth wave. Once again a long candle shadow may be heralding another remarkably short-lived corrective downside move. Printing presseses runnung 24/7...
ReplyDeleteExpanded flat - do you mean for the past 4-5 days?
DeleteWith a possible third wave top on 12/27 JoeM...not sure how AO reflects...
DeleteThank you for the excellent analysis, Joe
ReplyDeleteWelcome Walter.
DeleteES futures have a couple of closes beyond 62%
ReplyDeletehttps://invst.ly/pd83v
TJ
I used to keep telling myself after 61.8% retraces were exceeded that second waves can, after all, technically re-trace 100% of first waves. I finally got dis-abused of that irrelevant, nonetheless true, metric and instead look at price action round numbers. Watching 3250...
DeleteSomeone opined on the uelessness of VIX as an indicator and in some ways I can understand that sentiment. Relentless volatility suppression as a factor in masking true market risk is truly something to behold and in my opinion not properly weighted in trying to determine where this market is likely to head. We got that long expected gap higher this morning but look at what has happened subsequently. I suspect rather than any kind of sustained down-trend (at least until a final top is truly in) we will continue to see increasingly violent down-drafts that the CBs simply step in with floods of liquidity in an attempt to arrest the decline. I think the amplitude of these oscillations is simply going to intensify until we wake up one morning to ES down 300 points and the bridge finally collapses...just my two cents...
ReplyDeleteThat argument doesn't hold up when one looks at market action in the last two years.
DeleteThey have no control whatsoever.
As a pro pundit puts it: the margin clerks always defeat the central banker. Always.
I have closely watched price action around the round numbers, starting with the 2722.22 low last January. Every time they have been successfully defended on a closing basis it told you without fail where the market was headed in the near to medium term. I maintain that barring a gap below 3200 in futures Sunday night chances are we are headed higher. Looks like pretty good control to me....
DeleteET - Oct 7-8 was 67 SPX points, Nov 27-Dec 3 was 84. Is it reasonable that these were waves 2 and 4 from Oct 3?
ReplyDeleteIs it reasonable that Dec 24-Apr 30 was a sloppy 5 waves up, so that 5 up from Oct 3 could complete a zigzag?
@JoeM .. there are some ways to find a completion count. However, the $NYAD is still making new highs as of yesterday. Possible, but much less likely.
DeleteTJ
One way to count is for Aug.3 to Spet.12 as 1, Oct.3 as 2, yesterday's high as 3 and we are in 4 to around 3070 then a 5th higher with divergence on $NYAD at a new ATH.
DeleteIt should be Aug.5 low as the start of 1. So far, we have about 110 daily bars (I did not count).
DeleteNo, Redcloud. Then by the Principle of degree labeling, your supposed b of 2 to mid-September - which is supposed to be a sub-wave of 2 - is larger than all of the higher degree wave 1. You are claiming it is a b wave of 'lower degree', but it is larger than the larger degree wave 1. And that is not likely permitted.
DeleteThree up, new lows just ahead methinks...
ReplyDeleteSo, the second correction, ((2)), is longer in time than the first. Therefore, by the principles of degree labeling, it 'should' not be labeled as 1-2-i-ii or as A-B-i,ii because then ii, which is claimed to be a smaller degree wave than B is 'longer in time' than B.
Deletehttps://invst.ly/pd9k1
TJ
Got it!
DeleteHere is a follow-on post. Wave b = 90% x a, and c is below .b, already.
ReplyDeletehttps://invst.ly/pdahn
TJ
So, while I do not 'know' there will be a larger degree flat wave, given the typical 'Sunday night' action, such a wave could form with an equal or higher high, followed by a larger (c) wave down into 4 am - 6 am Monday morning.
Deletehttps://invst.ly/pdas7
Yes, the current c wave could just 'let loose lower' on some weekend news, but the down wave would be very short in time in comparison to the up wave in the futures. Let's see how it goes.
TJ
below you will find the last forecast I posted on this site. 6+ months ago. It still supports your count. not much has changed.
ReplyDeleteat the time you were quite dismissive - yet it was the exact B wave you are counting - potentially targeting 3300. I also showed a historical example. You called what I was doing a fallacy - using past to predict future. I was merely showing example of a very similar working count at possibly same degree.
marc
June 23, 2019 at 1:15 PM
Joe,
I am working on long term. Here is a comparison of wave 1 and wave 2 from 1942 bottom.
Everything from 2009 may be same degree but thats not the point.
Very interesting fractals supporting a case that B wave highs with 1.618 to 2 X retracements are not out of the ordinary. A rally to 3300 wouldnt change any long term count. I put an arrow where we could be in the fractal - that doesnt mean we have to go higher.
1942 W1 and W2
https://imgur.com/eFUruy6
1942 W1/W2 zoom
https://imgur.com/7B6lRZh
present
https://imgur.com/eZ1Reey
ReplyDelete
Replies
Elliott_TraderJune 23, 2019 at 1:48 PM
..the fallacy of 'what worked in the past will work in the future".
Marc .. my apologies for being dismissive. Regardless of my views, I shouldn't come across that way. As to the views, the sequence you are citing, even though it says '1942' is regarded by most Elliotticians to be the 'Expanding Triangle' of Cycle wave IV from 1965, onward. A truly massive Cycle wave V followed it.
DeleteThe fallacy comment was directed at having another bull market like that one after this wave. At present, that is not my count. In fact, Neely says the only way a 'B' wave can be 1.618 x A and have the corresponding 'C' wave exceed the 'A' wave low would be in a triangle formation. So far, Prechter has been incorrect about the triangle. That is still not my view. No triangle, as of this time.
TJ
Thanks TJ, I am sure you will publish when you are ready but I am still trying to wrap my head around a scenario where you have a B wave high that is not exceeded higher in by either another corrective wave in a combination of the same degree or a resumption of the bull market.
DeleteEven if the 5 waves up from 2009 ended a larger degree Bull move (from '74 or '29), I would doubt that the corrective wave to that would start with a B wave high.
I am going to keep thinking about this
Hi TJ,
ReplyDeleteThe (b) of W was very shallow and fast in most indices, to allow (a) of Y to subdivide mustn't the 2 and 4 of (a) be even shallower than (b) of W? See chart of NDX100 where (b) is marginally smaller than potential 2 of (a) of W.
If this is a degree violation then wee need to have them in the same degree (b)?
Thanks
https://invst.ly/pdcl9
Maybe something like this as an alternate:
Deletehttps://invst.ly/pdcme
Hi Erik. I don't think so. The X wave triangle takes over as the largest previous degree corrective structure. The next ((b)) wave - as I've shown above - needs only remain smaller than X. Then, (ii) and (iv) of any future diagonal would need to remain smaller than ((b)). You just take the sequence in order. And I have shown the second chart before. The problem with it is that it seems too close in time to the new all-time-high in the advance=decline line.
DeleteA new post has been added for the next day.
ReplyDelete