At the Moment

The chart below (ES 2-Hr) shows the best I can do at the moment, using the actual price extremes and swings involved - hiding the actual prices on the chart - and going by both the clear measurements & the overall look of the waves. 

ES Futures - 2 Hr - Schematic

We'll take it step-by-step in a Fibonacci eight items starting with the information on the left-hand-side.

1. The first retrace is labeled (b) because it is very short. As shown by the Fibonacci ruler it is only 0.382, in price compared to the corresponding (a) wave, and it is clearly also way shorter than (a) down in time, too.
2. From the (b) wave down, the next wave down is longer in price than the (a) wave, and is likely a corresponding  (c) wave companion to that (a) wave. Since the wave is longer in price than (a) then the two waves should be of the same degree. There is no clear fourth or fifth wave after it, so the chart suggests there are only 'three waves down' and a diagonal may be starting from the high, and so the first low is labeled as minute ((i)), down.
   
3. Next, the Fibonacci ruler on the right shows the second wave is a more typical wave ((ii)) with its measurements between 62 - 78% of wave ((i)). This is typical of diagonals.
4. Further, the Fibonacci ruler in the middle shows that the (c) wave of ((ii)) is within 1.618 x (a) of wave ((ii)), and this is acceptable for a (c) wave. Below wave ((ii)) is a red marker showing how long wave ((ii)) took in time. And it is still much less than the time of minute ((i)), overall. This again suggests a diagonal is in progress, as in impulse waves more often the second waves takes more time than the first.
   
5. Then there is a pretty clear non-overlapping five-wave-sequence down to the low on 30 Sep/01 Oct, and this wave breaks the low. This suggests the wave is a motive-impulsive wave and is probably an (a) wave. Also, this (a) wave is shorter in price & time than its prior minute ((i)) wave - the previous larger degree wave in the same direction - and so it does qualify as a subwave.
   
6. Oct 01 was probably some or all of a (b) wave up. Now (b) waves can be pretty intractable at times, so is it done? Why go through all this effort? Well, the next steps provide some payoff.
7. From the prior information we can see from the red Fibonacci ruler labeled 1, that 4435.75 would be an absolute maximum for the (b) wave. Why? Because beyond that level, it would become larger in price than wave ((ii)), up, and this would be a price degree violation. And even though it didn't cross the high of wave (ii)), it provides a key invalidation level for a diagonal count.
8. Lastly, looking at red time marker below wave ((ii)), and moving it over the start of the minuet (b) wave provides a time maximum beyond which the (b) wave should not extend. Why? Again, after the date shown, then the claimed smaller degree (b) wave would become larger than the claimed larger degree wave ((ii)) in time, and this would be a time degree violation, and so it provides another key measure of invalidation of a diagonal.

For those used to thinking of Elliott Wave in the most simplistic terms, this might be a lot to digest all at once. That's OK. This is Saturday and the markets are not open, so there is some time to take it in and let it roll around a bit. Overall, I'm trying to show you Elliott Wave so that you might be able to duplicate the results, not Elliott Wave Because I Said So as so many of the on-line services and even market professionals would like you to have it. They want you to be reliant on them. I'd rather that you could learn to be reliant on yourself.

 

And while nothing guarantees this wave count will pan out, the way to show how, when & why the wave count could invalidate should be clear. Thanks for listening.

 

Have an excellent rest of the weekend.

TraderJoe