Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Status - Wave Counting Stop above 3,237

The daily Elliott Wave count has not changed. Yesterday, we said and showed that we expected more upward movement for wave c of (ii). That did occur in the overnight for the futures, and during the regular session for cash.

The market was compressed in a narrow range today, although at the end of the day declines edged out advancing issues on the NYSE (see chart), though it was more like 1-to-2 on the NASDAQ.

ES Futures - Daily - Likely in Minor C

The above daily chart has a confirmed MACD divergence in that the Minor B wave is on a higher high, but the MACD has now crossed lower, too.

Today - during the session - I posted this chart LINK and said that a wave ii would have to have to remain within the base channel in order to have the wave (ii) location correct. It was close, but so far, the base channel has held. Here is the updated chart. (I had to change to candle format as some of the bars didn't print on the revised OHLC chart. Don't ask me why.)

ES Futures - 1 Hr - Wave (iii) Likely

The hourly chart has a confirmed "lower high" as the MACD made a lower high along with price. As you can see, price has already broken below the hourly fractal at wave i. It turns out in this count that a 1.618 x wave (i) would be at 3,100, if it occurs. The up wave (ii) is more than a 50% retracement, so a 1.618 wave (iii) extension is very possible. 

For this reason - and with the FED meeting report tomorrow - I have place a "wave-counting-stop" above 3,237, the high of wave ii, because the base channel should not be broken higher.

Just looking at the daily chart through a different lens, since the daily slow stochastic has lost its embedded status, it is entirely possible for price and the 18-day SMA to try to come together, and a trip to the lower daily Bollinger Band does not look unreasonable, either.

ES Futures - Daily - Slow Stochastic Not Embedded

Also, today was the third day since the "outside reversal day down", and, because its high was not exceeded within two trading days, according to the paraphrase of Ira's guidelines, a trap was not set for the bears.

Have a good start to your evening.
TraderJoe

15 comments:

  1. I trust if we are in iii of (iii), we should see some acceleration overnight?
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  2. Local news had on gold/silver bit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is the intraday wave counting screen, including daily pivot point update and closest fractals.

    https://invst.ly/rly4j

    TJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..also worth noting that the 18-day SMA is at the approximate S1 level. If S1 is 3,198, the 18-day SMA is 3,200.

      Delete
  4. Price at R1, above the base channel, and a touch of the 'wave-counting-stop' at 3,237 suggests that either wave ((ii)) is moved further to the right or the down count will be in jeopardy in the ES.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..now three closes over the upper intraday Bollinger Band, odds dropping to ~3% that next close is over the band. Not impossible - just lower odds.

      Delete
    2. Yep. If 2 were over, a downward three would imho have decisively breached 3200...

      Delete
    3. ..ES 30-min ..last close inside the band; resets the number of consecutive closes.

      Delete
  5. Is that 3 -30 minute bars or 3 closes with a low in between. Thks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3 - 30 minute closes above the band. Subtract 1% from 5% for each consecutive close above the band. If confused please seem my article where I paraphrase Ira's guidelines.

      Delete
  6. In terms of a larger ((i)), ((ii)) count, this is the best I can do and try to follow degree principles, but it sure is ugly.

    https://www.tradingview.com/x/G7pzNmv4/

    TJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a count on SPY, within 62%. Not sure if it will hold or not.

      Delete
  7. Reminder: FOMC decision and statement at 14:00 EDT, followed by press conference, around 14:30 EDT.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 62 percent fib hit on ES futures. Not sure it will matter much :/

    ReplyDelete