Joe Thanks. What are rules for wave 2 retrace if wave 1 was a leading/expanding diagonal? What if today's early morning low was (5) of 1 and this afternoon high was 2 (not much of a retrace) and then late day decline was start of a 3rd down? Thanks In advance.
Yw. Only 'rule' is ((ii)) can not exceed the high. If the down move is a "((i))" then the retrace is 'often' deeper than if the down move is an "((a))". I don't think the futures have enough new lows yet to make a diagonal, unless the fifth wave (v) failed at the close today. And a 'failure' is 'not allowed', by rule, in a leading diagonal.
The fed seemed to change some things. They now want to see inflation above 2% averaged over 3 years. And unemployment has changed from u-3 to u-6. We may be on permanent QE, lol.
I'm not sure if I'm on the right track but I thought I'd post my thoughts. Still unsure about Nasdaq as it could retest 12000 area soon. https://www.tradingview.com/x/XBRLdxI1/
No. Too many things wrong with it: 1) there has never been a pattern shown like this one, 2) degree violations: your C of ((y)) - not shown - which is a sub-wave is longer than all of ((w)) down. Both waves are in the same direction, and you are saying that a 'smaller degree subwave' can be larger than a larger degree wave.
👍 thank you
ReplyDeleteJoe Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWhat are rules for wave 2 retrace if wave 1 was a leading/expanding diagonal? What if today's early morning low was (5) of 1 and this afternoon high was 2 (not much of a retrace) and then late day decline was start of a 3rd down?
Thanks In advance.
Yw. Only 'rule' is ((ii)) can not exceed the high. If the down move is a "((i))" then the retrace is 'often' deeper than if the down move is an "((a))". I don't think the futures have enough new lows yet to make a diagonal, unless the fifth wave (v) failed at the close today. And a 'failure' is 'not allowed', by rule, in a leading diagonal.
DeleteThanks.
DeleteObservations on DXY (wkly) if interested -
ReplyDeletehttps://funkyimg.com/i/3b8Va.png
Grabbed EOD DXY by mistake (S/B DXY ICEUS). Reg. hidden div. is on it. Otherwise, everything the same. :o)
DeleteUpdate on Stocks above their 50ma -
ReplyDeletehttps://funkyimg.com/i/3b9zJ.png
👍
DeleteThe fed seemed to change some things. They now want to see inflation above 2% averaged over 3 years. And unemployment has changed from u-3 to u-6. We may be on permanent QE, lol.
ReplyDeleteFED is irrelevant
Deleterates lead ...fed follows
Observations on Copper (wkly) if interested -
ReplyDeletehttps://funkyimg.com/i/3b9Em.png
Copper & lumber ripping higher bodes well for economy and inflation.
DeleteSPX (log) mthly - just observations
ReplyDeletehttps://funkyimg.com/i/3b9GQ.png
GW do you try to fit 140 to 160 bars in a timeframe?
DeleteNot purposely if I do. Probably close to half+ of my chart is data unless Im trying to purposely look back further. Not sure that helps.
DeleteI'm not sure if I'm on the right track but I thought I'd post my thoughts. Still unsure about Nasdaq as it could retest 12000 area soon.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/XBRLdxI1/
ES (wkly), a possible alternative?
ReplyDeletehttps://funkyimg.com/i/3baRp.png
No. Too many things wrong with it: 1) there has never been a pattern shown like this one, 2) degree violations: your C of ((y)) - not shown - which is a sub-wave is longer than all of ((w)) down. Both waves are in the same direction, and you are saying that a 'smaller degree subwave' can be larger than a larger degree wave.
DeleteFor those interested, more examples of reg. hidden divs., and how they may fit in with wave analysis -
ReplyDeletehttps://funkyimg.com/i/3bb2a.png
Great stuff thanks gw
DeleteA new post is started for the next day.
ReplyDelete