The Very First Rule

While we are waiting some internal resolution of the current hourly up sequences in the ES futures, I thought I would touch on a basic topic, but in a way that you probably have not seen or heard before. That is the First Rule of Elliott Wave. I have a lot of respect for Glenn Neely. He has had some excellent clarifications of EW theory. But there are some places I disagree with him, plain-and-simple. He claims his rule-base for Elliott Wave is more extensive than EWI's. That is partially true. It may also be true that he has "added" patterns that don't follow the rules. In other words, he may also have decreased the rule base of Elliott Wave, and he won't tell you that or look at it that way. Let's start with an in-depth review of the very first rule in Elliott Wave. You know that rule is as follows:

Wave 2 may not retrace more than 100% of Wave 1.

That rule is diagrammed on the left below.

The First Rule of Elliott Wave

Implicit in that first rule is the fact that wave 2 will, indeed, have a retrace on wave 1. This is clearly supported by the impulse wave "guidelines" that the second wave retrace will typically be 50 - 62% on the first wave.

In Mastering Elliott Wave, Neely does away with this convention and argues for a "running second wave" where the c wave of 2 does not overlap on wave 1. An example of this appears in the diagram on the right. There are two logical traps with this approach. The first one is diagrammed below.

The first logical trap is this: If the lower degree b wave is less than the total length of the larger degree wave 1, as prescribed by degree definitions, then what is to separate the purported running second wave on the left, from a further impulse where the first wave is the extended wave (as shown on the right)? Thus, Neely has created more confusion in this rule set and actually decreased the rule-base of Elliott Wave.

The second logical trap is this: What is the meaning of the depth of a "retrace"? Is it the travel of the "c" wave, or just the travel of the "a" wave? Neely's "running second wave" would seem to suggest that it is only the "a" wave in this case as that is the only thing that overlaps wave 1. But, if that is the case, why isn't that also the case in the very first diagram, where the retrace is measured to the end of the "c" wave and can't go below the start of the first wave? The last-wave-in-the-retrace view is supported further by the rule that states the (e) wave of a running triangle "must" overlap its prior 3 wave or its prior B wave.

Do you see the issues this creates? To have a rule set, definitions must be consistent. In fact, I will even go one further and suggest that in a true "running second wave" the "c" wave would likely have to be longer in price than the "a" wave, overlapping wave 1, or else the pattern could also be confused with a contracting diagonal.

I have long argued that only way to see whether Elliott Wave is working or not is to "follow the rules". If you don't follow the rules, you don't know if the count is working. Still, there are many people out there who won't take the time to internalize the rules well enough to know why they make sense. And, it has even gotten worse.

According to some on-line information, Prechter has now changed the rule for the third wave in a contracting diagonal and now says in some circumstances it can now be the longest wave, precisely contradicting the definition of a contracting pattern. A contracting pattern means 5 < 3 < 1 or e < d < c < b < a. Pure and simple.

In both cases (Neely and Prechter) it's my opinion that the original rules are just fine for the task, and both are currently being fooled by just plan-and-simple but unprecedented monetary expansion, though I will agree that on a log chart the rules should be consistent, and on a short-term arithmetic chart, the rules should 'also' be consistent.

That said, there are still problems with the "rules" for Elliott Wave. For example, what is the definition of a "first wave" up? How does one "know" it is the first wave up, and not the assumed retrace of a part of a bear market? How is this made consistent across all stocks, indexes, commodities, crypto's etc.? 

This is only the first rule. And that is partly why this is so much fun. 

Have an excellent rest of the weekend,

TraderJoe