Bigtim on Dan's blog posed a question regarding an alternate count for Cycle Wave C.
http://danericselliottwaves.blogspot.com/2009/08/p2-massive-grand-supercycle-backtest.html#comment-13799877
Bigtim believes we may be nearing the end of primary wave IV of Cycle Wave C before Primary Wave V completes to a new low.
If Bigtim is correct, I have a Cycle Wave C low in near 600 (if P5=P1) and 500 (if P5=1.618xP1) on the SPX. This almost makes sense to me if you look at the proportion of the waves.
If SuperCycle 4 is a flat, which it most closely resembles, than Cycle Wave C should extend just a little lower than the end of Cycle Wave A. If it were an expanded flat, then C would usually extend 1.618 x A but in this case it does not seem like it would apply.
EWI has us in Primary Wave 2 which is near completion. However, this never made sense to me because by my calculation, the low for Cycle Wave C would take us near SPX 200 based on the following:
If Primary Wave 2 tops out at 1100 and Primary Wave 3 = Primary Wave 1 (900 point swing), then 1100-900= a 200 point low for Primary Wave 3. Where will that leave Primary Wave 5? Somewhere near 100 if it does not truncate? Is that possible? I guess anything is possible. Does it make sense? I'm not sure.
What I am sure about is that it will be very interesting.
first off, thanks for your work.
ReplyDeletenewbie question...
from looking at your chart, could the first 3 waves of cycle c actually be just wave 1? and we are currently in wave 2 instead of wave 4?
thanks again.
bruiser,
ReplyDeletethat is certainly a possible count as well and another way to look at it.
let's look at this count. a 5 wave impulse would take spx down pretty low and most likely have c =2.618x a. (i don't have my tools avail to measure this at this time as i'm responding from my mobile) and that is why i'm thinking it is less probable. not impossible, but just less probable than my current primary alt view.
for this alternate that i have presented, this remains my primary (again for this alternate view) because the ratio of wave c to a would make more sense or is more probable.
not a bad thing to keep in mind though. thx for reading!
bruiser,
ReplyDeletei forgot to mention, the count that you mentioned is the primary count by ewi: http://www.elliottwave.com/a.asp?url=/&cn=9wp
and mine for now.
however, this post is an alternate view. i sorta view ewi's count with a little skepticism. though they are the "pros" they don't always get it right.
in fact they did not get the 7/8 rally correct, so that is why i have placed this alt view out there.
GL!
thanks for your response!
ReplyDelete