Sunday, February 7, 2010

2/7/10 - DOW Primary Count [2/7/10 10:30 AM PST Update]

[2/7/10 10:30 AM PST Update]

One interesting note is the fractal ("self-similiarity") nature of the structure thus far from the 1150 high. Notice that if this primary count is correct, (i) of [iii] through (ii) of [iii] resemble [i] and [ii] on a smaller scale. At the larger degree [ii] is counted as an expanded flat, just like (ii) of [iii]

I believe the DOW and SPX are following along in tandem. The squiggle count for the DOW is almost identical to SPX.

Based on this count, I would say the probability is very good that minuette (ii) of minute [iii] is well underway (completed or very close).

c of (ii) = 2.618a of (ii) at approximately 10063.


  1. Hi Grand,
    I'm following your blog and like your work. On this occasion, I have to take exception to your count, however. Your b of (ii) retraced well over the allowed 138% of the a wave, and that is not supposed to happen. I would suggest instead that iv of (i) of [iii] was a running flat that ended at the next unlabelled peak on your chart after your a wave. The decline that occurred after that was a clear five wave v of (i). Graphically, I have this count posted on my blog at

  2. blankfiend. thanks for the comment and feedback. i don't disagree that the guidelines state that b should not be greater that than 1.382 of 'a', however, that is only a guideline and not a rule. so i wouldn't say my count is a possible error just yet. i think both counts are potentially valid

    i cannot ignore the squiggle count and because the b wave issue is only a guideline and not a rule, the squiggles trump the guidelines at this point.

    i didn't trust my squiggle count when we were trying to determine the end of [ii]. based on my squiggle count i thought [ii] had ended but like many , thought we would see a retrace to 1110-1115 because of typical retrace levels and what not but that didn't happen).

    I saw the two Leading diagonals down forming the 1s and 2s ( eagle and i discussed this that morn and speculated that 1104 would be tops for [ii] and the market may surprise all ). What made me doubt the LDs that morning was the fact that subwave 3 was longer than 1 and i stated that was a rule violation and disregarded that as a possibility. well, low and behold it turned out to be correct.

    this is the post on my blog at the very bottom on this:

    i was very suspicious of it. when the market dropped that morn, it immediately confirmed what i had counted.

    so i'm seeing the same possible thing again. the squiggles are indicating (ii) is just about done with one guideline exception ( so this is even better because the above example was a rule violation)

    many are expecting 1080s for this bounce but my squiggles are saying something different again. i'm just providing another perspective and if the market drops tomorrow i surely won't be surprised, but if she attempts to hit 1085, i won't be surprised either. i think these are two counts to watch.

    it should not take very long tomorrow to confirm one of the counts. so we will see.

  3. I share your feeling about getting fooled by [ii]. I personally sat on my hands for the early part of (i) of [iii] thinking it was a (b) wave of [ii]. DOHHH! On the other hand, I do see a pretty good five wave from the top of where I put iv of (i). I just posted my micro count at

  4. BTW, how did you get your comment section to require a verification word? Not that I get jack for comments on my blog, but it MIGHT come in handy someday...

  5. Blankfiend,

    excellent micro count. your iv is a running flat as you suggest above. EWP (pg 48) states that this occurs when "forces in the direction of the larger trend are so powerful that the pattern is skewed in that direction". this would make sense since we both agree that minute [iii] is in play. however, pg 49 states, "We must issue a warning, however. There are hardly any examples of this type of correction in the price record. Never label a correction prematurely this way, or you'll find yourself wrong nine times out of ten."

    i'm just looking forward to the next few days.

    as for word verification, it may be turned on by going to settings, comments and near the bottom there is an option for word verification. GL!!!

  6. Thanks Grand.

    All set on the word verification.

    As to the running flat warning, I begin to think that page 49 needs a revision in a future edition. I am curious as to how you have the Minor B wave in Intermediate (Y) of [2]. I have it as a running flat from early August to early September. The Intermediate (X) that followed (Y) could also be classified that way in the SPX, and I have been frustrated by quite a number of other examples at lower wave degrees throughout [2].

  7. BTW, thanks for responding to my posts here. I am not in any way trying to be argumentative and am just enjoying the dialog. No matter which count is right, I think the important thing to remember is that we don't want to miss out on (iii) of [iii]!

  8. Blankfied. I don't take it as argumentative at all. I sincerely appreciate the feedback. I certainly asked for it earlier today when I posted the count on the CiL. I think we both know there is no such thing as the "right" count, only what is probable and that is also open for interpretation. I think it's important to always see everything. Look at Pug. He's so bullish but his counts also work so I don't take what he puts out for granted either.