Sometimes I draw a chart with a twist or two in it to see who is watching, and who cares about counting waves. Yesterday, I posted a chart with a clear and obvious error in it to see who gives a toot. No one apparently. Everyone wants to draw their own charts - with legal counts or not - or point to their favorite website that tells them that prices are going higher forever. Or they want to show some other way to make a technical indicator work on the market. Apparently, very few people are interested in conversing regarding wave structure. So, no matter who you are - you failed the test. Why bother to read this site, or any other Elliott analyst if you are not going to engage with it? The boredom and complacency are palpable.
Yesterday's chart showed and referenced five "minute waves" symbols ((a)) - ((e)) as a triangle between two clearly marked intermediate waves. That obviously is not correct. It simply does not follow degree structure. The triangle wave should have been labeled at Minor degree as A - E. It is Minor degree waves that make up Intermediate degree waves. Intermediate degree waves are made up of Minor degree waves.
Really. No one - with few exceptions - cares a whit about degree or what it means. No one cares to lob a comment back like ("hey! I know I am right about these degree labels are you are just incorrect, TJ!").
So be it. So today there is no chart. You can read the comments for yesterday if you like.
Daily Bias - Up
Intraday Bias - Finished lower.
Daily Slow Stochastic - Still Embedded
Candle Pattern: Inside Day
Have a good start to your evening.
TraderJoe
Didnt know you had attorneys deciding if the waves were legal.
ReplyDeletephil1247
ReplyDeleteNovember 8, 2021 at 5:05 pm Edit
Monday, November 8, 2021
You Failed the Test
Sometimes I draw a chart with a twist or two in it to see who is watching, and who cares about counting waves. Yesterday, I posted a chart with a clear and obvious error in it to see who gives a toot. No one apparently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
trader joe finally gets it ???
nobody gives a shit about his bogus B wave
posted on my blog
EVERYONE...please go to Phil's site. He either wants the business or the ego gratification of getting a sign up. Since he had contributed absolutely nothing here, I'm sure you'll find more of the same there.
DeleteTJ
There is really no reason to be vituperative. I for one will readily admit there is a sense of some futility in expending time and effort trying to correctly identify and label every last wave and degree in what is clearly a challenging market environment. If even a. expert like yourself is forced to constantly re-work your counts as the market does the unexpected, imagine how difficult it must be for those who are learning. The trend clearly remains up. I think what you ascribe to dis-interest in the details of wave degree might simply be a recognition by your readers of that reality and hence a hesitancy to focus on the finer points of degree labels at this point. Just my two cents!
Delete@Tachy .. finer points, huh? Basic definition. You still don't get it. You have a different interest. Period. But you claim I am somehow angry or even bothered. How many times have I said the trend is up? How many times are you going to repeat it back to me, ad nauseum? Maybe you are in options and don't give a whit about 30 - 50 points down or your constant exits around 'round numbers'. Others are not in your situation, and some of us don't want to be.
DeleteTJ
On a short-term snapshot timeframe, it doesn't really matter what degree labelling is used. As long as you're able to identify either 1-2-3-4-5 waves or A-B-C waves, then you've conveyed the main trend and structure.
DeleteIf we're looking at say a 6-month chart, and somebody asks: "Are we in a C-wave down?", then a simple "Yes" or "No" or "Probably" will suffice. But replying with: "No, we're in an Intermediate degree C-wave down, don't you give a toot?!" is overly pedantic. We know that waves on a 6-month chart are mostly likely Intermediate degree. As long as the main bigger picture roadmap is maintained with the correct degree labelling, the short to medium term charts are often discarded as working pieces.
It is impossible to engage on this site, since you ban other people's Elliott Wave analysis. Wrong or right, beginner or expert, an open and critical discussion ought to be had of the Elliott Wave principle, all probable counts ought to be considered until the market eliminates.
Nevertheless, I enjoy visiting this site, and remain receptive to all forms of technical analysis. Anything can happen in the markets, and as humans with illusory free-will, we will for the majority of the part make poor predications, and always have.
As for the markets, I believe the 2020 Covid Crash started a new Cycle degree bull market, and ought to see the DOW to 100,000 by the year 2030. In the short to medium-term, Bitcoin ought to head towards 136K or 220K within 3-6 months, and then there will be a correction/crash across equities (-25%) and cryptos (-90%).
https://12345abcdewxyz.wordpress.com/
No offense intended T.J. I have been reading your blog for awhile now and personally have no complaints. I am not reading for trading advice. I have been primarily interested in seeing whether your detailed approach was successful in keeping your analysis on the right side of the larger trend. While I have never criticized you for your putative B top labels as I certainly do not think you are infallible, it think you do loose some respect by an apparent inability to admit, or even recognize your approach does have its limitations (as do mine). I have mentioned before that I am a spread trader with very specific rules for entries and exits that have absolutely nothing to do with EW. I admit I do not know as much as you do about EWT. I am also pretty sure from your "down 30-50 points" comment that credit spread trading is not your Forte, and that's cool. Sorry about the repetition of the trend issue. Not my intention to beat a dead horse on that one!
Delete@123abc .. how much do you want me to laugh? I just looked at your Dow chart, and you have a Primary ((5)), drawn as a-b-c-d-e where there is a triangle in middle for b; and so the structure is neither is impulsive or diagonal - which, of course, breaks the 'rules'. My goodness man, talk about 'force-fitting' a count to fit your now acknowledged uber bullish view. Good luck with that!
DeleteTJ
The a-b-c-d-e should actually be a 1-2-3-4-5 (as I've already addressed in the comments section of that post on my site). It is simply an Ending Diagonal. Once again, its just semantics, but the structure has been conveyed. Not all Ending Diagonals are required to have the fourth overlapping the first. See p.39 of Prechter & A.J. Frost: https://i.ibb.co/THzj0mm/ed.jpg
Delete..nope, sorry; no points for that reply.
DeleteTest
ReplyDeleteThe dji had a very clear triangle similar to what you drew on Sunday. I have been pointing that out and remember some were forcing a count hwre by saying the 5th wave of ed truncated in dow. I got the feeling you guys were not interested in exploring a triangle. I have also followed u for many years. I get a feeling that in last 2 years you have started putting too much emphasis on degrees which puts you in a bind (u wont remember it but i asked you abt apple making an impulsive wave arnd 115 and you didnt agree with it baaed on the size/degree of corrective wave) and apple eventually moved 40 dollars after that. Just my 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteIn AAPL I was pointing out on a short term chart this potential diagonal, shown in brown below. There is a clear an obvious overlap.
Deletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/sqaCgHV2/
There is another equally valid way to label the chart, BUT people here would have had another bird-fit about a big B wave.
https://www.tradingview.com/x/idpomvWC/
Do you see how long that ((b)) wave would be on this log chart? From $38 to $80. What do you think the reaction would be to that wave label?! You can not ignore the overlap. It is there. It's a fact.
TJ
I’m fascinated by EW but can’t comprehend all the rules. Then you have three intelligent people, yourself, Avi Gilbert, and the guys at Trading Analysis all coming up with different counts from ‘09 and ‘20 bottoms. That leaves observers and learners very frustrated.
ReplyDelete..yet the guys at 'Trading Analysis' say, 'Regardless of the irregularities we have counting off the bottom .. we maintain our bullish stance'. The wave pilot knows his count is incorrect. They are running a hedge fund for Todd. What do you expect?
DeleteTJ
..and then the guys at 'Trading Analysis' said (Bennett, I believe), "we did not get the technical signals we needed at the (Sept 2020) high. So we missed that decline." .. of 250 points. That's where prices were 'most divergent' from the $NYAD, and from MACD, and from Money Flow. But they didn't get 'technical signals'? It makes my shoulders shrug.
DeleteTJ
I agree with you on that last comment. The technicals were obviously divergent at that time.
DeleteMargin Debt ROC and ImpVol - these appear to be problematic -
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/view/7realh3j6wef0q4/MD%2525chg.PNG/file
https://www.mediafire.com/view/5ktus6xunf21pcb/ImpVol.PNG/file
Note: 2nd chart deleted. Not current.
DeleteYour second link is broken.
DeleteI cannot prove this, but I suspect the amount of leverage permitted in equities markets has greatly increased.This could partly explain the unprecedented number of price gaps higher in an equally unprecedented "ramp & camp" price action for many years now. We know markets have been precisely tracking CB balance sheets. If that largesse is also being applied with unprecedented leverage, we no longer have markets, we have a grotesque illusion. I agree we go higher in the near term, but make no mistake, there is nothing "bullish" about what we are seeing. The story about FED members dabbling in stock trading tells you all you need to know. I could be wrong. My trader friends all laughed at me a few months ago when I said the fair value for MRNA was less than zero...not laughing now...
Delete@tachy .. 1) no commissions, 2) corporate buy-backs.
DeleteTJ
On 3 November I put a question, my comment was not published and I had no answer. My question was not offensive, therefore, either you erased it without reading it, or I don't know why you didn't answer me, or publish my message.
ReplyDeleteI repeat:
About this chart:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2vHIUwe0l6s/YYLxzmbjVCI/AAAAAAAAMMs/COdzluiwjRA_HKkOHCYHmfmnQeYXU1qSACLcBGAsYHQ/s1586/ES1%2521_12Hr_2021-11-03_16-18-58.png
Is there a degree violation because wave (2) is larger in time and price than the whole ((b))?
In other words, I reformulate the question:
In a zig-zag a-b-c, it can be a correction within a, greater than the wave b?
Thank you.
One, there is no (2) on the chart. There is a (ii). If you mean that one, then no it is not a degree violation. What you are doing is counting the waves 'backwards-in-time' rather than as they were made.
DeleteThanks for your reply.
DeleteSorry for typing error (2) instead of (ii).
I am confused by your answer, because in previous examples, you have commented on cases of degree violation in the typical example of 1-2-((1))-((2)) where, logically, to know if the ((2)) violates the rule you have to compare to the previous wave 2. Is this also counting backwards-in-time?
Example:
http://studyofcycles.blogspot.com/2017/11/profound-conflict-and-ways-forward.html
Conclusion:
in an a-b-c zig-zag, the wave (ii) of a may be larger than the wave b, but the wave (ii) of c cannot be larger than the wave b.
Is it like that ? Or I still haven’t figured it out.
ET, I don’t want to bother, I want to clarify concepts, and I try to make your comments compatible with those of Neely, who recently said in an interview:
Delete“A smaller degree pattern should not consume more price than the larger degree patterns.”. Maybe you don't agree with this Neely's guide
It is (ii) of ((c)) that must not be larger than ((b)). You count 'forward in time'; not backward in time.
DeleteOkay, thanks for clarifying.
Delete@123abc while I do not share your sanguine market outlook, you do make some very cogent points regarding identifying Elliott waves. The main difference between T.J's and other very capable EW analysts is the he is counting a corrective wave and they an impulsive one. There is a reason they sometimes call B waves "rogue" or "sucker" waves. In expanded flats it can be tough to discern whether the impulsive or corrective stance is correct. Avi and others were expecting a 4th wave correction and while expressing some doubts about the bottoming pattern. did correctly call the bottom 3 weeks ago. I have heard that a b wave designation should be discarded for an expanded flat at B >2A. Not sure who's correct...obviously both counts cannot be...
ReplyDeleteES 15-min: yesterday I said this expanding pattern could come to pass if certain length criteria were met. The length criteria were met in the futures. I said it could EITHER be w-x-y-x-z OR an expanding diagonal. IFF it is the former it could be part of a larger hourly triangle. IFF it is the later, then it could start a down movement if the high is not exceeded.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/UI3NwbXb/
Right now we need to acknowledge that the structure did not form in the cash market. Keep an open mind.
TJ
ES 60-min: here is one way to count that potential hourly triangle. Remember, the cash market is not open yet. It is CERTAINLY POSSIBLE to get a larger triangle - shown in red - or even have the structure devolve down into a Flat.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/AI4wdl7g/
TJ
ES 60-min: expand the triangle one time and see if the low holds. If it does, it's likely a triangle; if it doesn't then it might devolve into a larger flat.
Deletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/a1V9T2NQ/
TJ
ES 60-min: price has now again tagged the EMA-34 on this time frame. That means it is 'sufficient' for an (e) wave lower in a triangle. It 'does not' yet mean all downward price movement is over.
DeleteTJ
ES 60-min; now broke the low of the triangle, invalidating it. Devolution in progress. 4,700 to 4,670 .. who gives a rats' right?
DeleteTJ
ES 4-Hr.. fyi .. I am just pointg out that this 4-Hr closing trend line has been broken lower. I am also just pointing out where 0.236 and 0.382 are on a closing basis. What you do with that information is up to you.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/6v6YcW5T/
TJ
SPY 1-min; the question to ask is, "Will a diagonal form properly?".
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/DJFJI7jx/
TJ
The answer is 'yes'. There was a higher high. First question, is, is it over?
Deletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/JY0rFrAC/
Second question, is it 'leading' or 'ending. ONLY going through the low in less time can definitively establish it as ending.
TJ
It is 'not' my fault that an ending diagonal can only be established by going through the low is less time. That is simply the way that wave structure works. Can you 'err' on the side of a 62% retracement or a new high? You can do any thing you like. I am just showing 'how' to count a wave.
DeleteTJ
SPY 1-min: Can you see how actually the 'three labels' a/i/c are all exactly EQUIVALENT given your 'state of knowledge' at this time. And yes, one has more probability than the other. But, nothing is yet 'highly' probable.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/V3hUafSL/
TJ
..and if you are interested in the short term, you add a 'time-rule' to your chart.
Deletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/OSjL410Z/
TJ
to establish an ending diagonal..you would have to go 'through the low' before about 11:30 am. Isn't that valuable information if you are following intraday markets, or not?
DeleteTJ
If it's c, then where's a and b? To me, doesn't appear that c's an option?
DeleteThanks
c is listed last; it would be a Flat wave from 09:56.
DeleteTJ
SPY 1-min: chart shows SPY as 'out of time', and with a deep retrace.
Deletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/OHiOzzMM/
TJ
SPY 1-min; the next step is to draw a TENTATIVE base channel and see if it will hold.
Deletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/7VPP4pEe/
If it holds and a higher high is made, then the wave might impulse up. IF not, best assumption down to the low again is a FLAT wave.
TJ
So a is that little two bar move up? Seems very disproportionate to the nicely defined c wave. What am I missing?
DeleteThanks
c would be 1.618 x a, added to b; not very disproportionate, but time ran out , and so it is 'water under the bridge'. Also, as new local high as below.
Deletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/e3hIRC9A/
TJ
why not call it ABC with diagonal being C in expanded flat if you want to count ending diagonal ? low of down move may not be end of wave? is this possible? thnaks
ReplyDelete..see above @11:46.
DeleteTime for some lunch. Back in a couple of hours.
ReplyDeleteTJ
SPY - observations
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/view/t16kk3h9ufh56do/Unominuto.PNG/file
Attempting to give a toot, why can't the morning price action be counted as follows..?
ReplyDeletehttps://i.ibb.co/bKbtb4C/spy.png
..because the overlap at (4) implies an expanding diagonal; and then the middle and ending segments are clearly in three waves (you may disagree) and you can not mix three-waves and five-waves in a diagonal for the numbered waves. While the 'lengths' are correct for a 5-3-5-3-5 diagonal, the internal segments BETTER count as 'threes' in this example. In your count 5-3-5-3-5 that is ALWAYS a leading diagonal and the break down to lower prices has already disproved that count.
DeleteTJ
SPY 5-min: switching to 5-min; TENTATIVE base channel broke down. Three waves down formed, 'probable' b wave of Flat, or now, potential double combination; if additional waves form properly also possible 'running triangle'.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/2Xrdh3fG/
TJ
SPY 5-min; so far the upward waves have refused to impulse. There is already a possible legal triangle.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/AkibEwL4/
TJ
With the VIX breaking down trend line it might be time to retrace and test 18-20 dma SPX
ReplyDeleteWe have what looks like an exhaustion gap. So far I see only three down. Of course all of little significance nowadays, lol!
ReplyDelete@tachy .. we can't tell what you are responding too or observing. Please either use the 'Reply' link; or indicate instrument and time frame. TIA.
DeleteK. Was counting cash 30 min chart.
DeleteFive waves down and a neckline at 4670. Don't tops always trace something mangy and ugly, which we then realize was "just another W4, FML" or, at long last, a change in direction.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe this, less cramped, neckline actually at 4665. That would make a legal diagonal with triplets and overlapping 1-4.
DeleteSo far still counting a series of three threes down so far.Proportions don't appear to be a triangle so I am thinking some kind of diagonal down?
DeleteJust saw T.J's comment...sorry about redundancy...
DeleteSPY5 e.o.d. - observations (click to enlarge)
ReplyDeletehttps://www51.zippyshare.com/v/ugVMfvFK/file.html
There is a new post started for the next day.
ReplyDeleteTJ