U.S. Equity prices, as measured by the ES E-mini futures contracts, went down to the 18-day average of closes, and bounced, as shown in the ES daily chart below. As so often happens, this was accompanied by the loss of the embedded status of the daily slow stochastic, as shown below. The down (red) fractal on the FOMC report date of 17 September was not yet exceeded lower.
![]() |
ES Futures - Daily - Bounce from the 18-Day SMA |
![]() |
ES Futures - 30 minute - Three Wave So Far |
So, the problems seem to be solved by designating the "running b/ii wave", and by suggesting that wave ④ is a flat wave to bring its net travel in line with the prior correction. However, that clearly leaves the count with only three-waves down into the c/iii divergent low.
The EWO now appears to be heading up, and a true non-overlapping fourth and fifth wave are needed for a downward impulse wave, probably within 120 - 180 half-hour candles. If this does not occur, then any downward wave would have to form by diagonal instead - if one is to form properly or at all.
Price closed the session above the 18-day SMA. So, the daily bias is still up. The only day that price can get the embedded status of the daily slow stochastic back is tomorrow. Closing below the 18-day SMA might change the bias to lower and create a longer down wave than prior down waves, but that has just not happened yet.
The "running b/ii wave" was a significant sign of weakness. We have not seen one of those in a while. For that reason - and others - no amount of downside would be surprising to me. It would be a matter of counting it properly. But, right now, the downward wave count is governed by The Principle of Equivalence and has two commensurate meanings. That means an upward diagonal or a triangle could still form here and make higher highs and these must be considered equally with downward counts until the market rules out one set of circumstances.
For our part, we count & we measure. And that is compared to the rule-based logic.
Have an excellent start to the evening,
TraderJoe
TJ, wave Ⓐ is +27.0 (6701.75/6728.75) while wave Ⓒ is marginally longer in px +27.25 (6,678.00/6705.25) but shorter in time. Would the 0.25 points be line-in-the-sand for degree violation and hence the running b/ii is a more appropriate count?
ReplyDeleteSeparately, is there a possible wave count from from the orthodox hi at 6,756.75? Your advice appreciated.
https://imgbox.com/ObGUnjmR
Q1: Yes. Nested 1-2-i-ii 'must' have the ii shorter in price than 2.
DeleteQ2: No. You are creating degree violations in the first iii because those internal waves are longer than i. Also, several other measures topped at ii, not i.
TJ
Thanks Tj. I am tired of this line and the sand :)
ReplyDeleteThe sand does get into everything, shoes, shirts, etc. TJ.
DeleteEven swim trunks! First hand experience coming from the Virgin Islands. 😎
DeleteI forget the name of the Austrian ellliott practitioner back in late 2022 that predicted a top at 6700 in the SPX. I'm going with him. Any surprises tomorrow will be to the downside..possibly a big move.
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/riteshmjn/status/1870463846747611141
DeleteNow back to prior b/ii wave, and upward overlap identifies the down wave as a,b,c only. Only down count could be a diagonal. Up count can still be a triangle or diagonal. TJ.
ReplyDeleteES 60-min: outside range bar down. Also breaking an up parallel. 'Might' go on to make a diagonal down (or secondarily a triangle 4th so that 4 does not overlap but it seems 'awfully' early in a down sequence for a triangle). TJ.
DeleteSo far, a,b,c up, too, then downward overlap as below.
Deletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/AFxvm19h/
TJ
72 year forecast :)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.neowave.com/tradingblog/blog.asp?bid=125
The problem with Neely's chart is that the wave two's, (II), 2, etc. don't overlap with their wave one's, and are therefore not corrective to the wave one. This allows 'any' wave count to be developed. If you can place a two 'anywhere' then you can place any number or any letter 'anywhere'. The fact that his longer term 'economic progress' view is correct does not make the wave count correct.
DeleteTJ
Does this look like expanding diagonal
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tradingview.com/x/y5Ez8k20/
https://www.tradingview.com/x/En28uoU2/
DeleteI don't see anything disqualifying in linear scale. Log scale 'looks' much different. TJ.
DeleteBeen thinking about this for years, the behavior is fascinating to me, like TJ's 1929 EED.
DeleteOr ELD ? TJ
DeleteA new post is started for the next day.
ReplyDeleteTJ