As mentioned in my previous post on this potential count, I have added two charts highlighting the Fib relationships of the expanded flat for wave 2 in both degrees.
The Fib relationship of minuette waves (a), (b) and (c) meet most of the EW guidelines. The only issue would be wave (b)'s relationship to (a). It is 1.83. This is a little high since the guidelines are generally 1-1.38.
The Fib relationship of subminuette wave b to a is 1.43. Subminuette wave c, if almost complete, would be 1.618 to a. Once again, these are decent Fib relationships per the guidelines.
The other two Fib relationships that meet the EW guidelines:
- Minute [ii] retraced minute [i] approximately 61.8% (found on daily chart; blue Fib lines).
- Minuette (ii) is looking to retrace (i) approximately 78.6% (found on 60 min chart; green Fib lines)
The alternate count, of this one potential count, is that the move off the 1044.50 bottom is a 5 wave impulse representing minuette (c) of minute [ii].
If 1112.42 is taken out the subminuette count [waves (i) and (ii)] is off the table. This would bring the alternate count mentioned above into play and of course if 1150 is taken out, this is all off the table.
Trendlines and channels may have been drawn in that indicate resistance levels at these targets. I chose not to do so at this time because I wanted to keep this chart as clear as possible (plenty notations already).
I believe most readers have seen the trendlines and channels I have placed in my previous charts as well as what other bloggers have been posting.
Either count would work for the bears and would imply a wave [iii] or (iii) is coming up shortly.
Thank you for posting this-- very interesting, very good work. One of the first counts I've seen in a while that seems internally consistent and unforced. Since you have posted, have you heard of any other reasons, besides the slightly long "b", as to whether anyone else thinks this count could be invalidated by any other rules?
ReplyDelete...and that was one of the first counts that seems consistent "in the general blogging universe"-- (was not being critical of you)!
ReplyDeleteanonymous. thk u for viewing and the feedback.
ReplyDeletethank u for reminding me of one other issue with wave (b). i will address this later but i believe breadth on this drop for (b) was more consistent with a wave 3 or c. so that in itself makes it questionable as well.
however, ew isn't about certainty but of probability so for now it, even with the aforementioned issues, this count appears to be decent.
the ABC count btw is not off the table either; ie the drop from 1150 being a large ABC, the bounce off 1044.50 being an X wave only to be followed with another ABC down.
i'll post some charts on this scenario as well.
grand, for the flat count you have, isn't there a rule where wave B of a flat must not exceed 2x wave A. I think this was discussed in Kenny's blog a while ago. B = over 1.618 A will be highly suspect.
ReplyDeleteThat one is near or maybe over 2x A.
sounds like you may be leaning toward bumping up the leading diagonal count...
ReplyDeletewhen you post the abc-x-abc, can you throw out your preliminary thoughts on what this means longer term (new multi-year bull market?), as then this is a corrective, not impulsive move? I guess that makes 2003-2004 the correct analogy to today, or even 1987 if you think this is a 4 wave (my example dates may be off, but you know what I'm getting at...)
rogerjarema,
ReplyDeleteyou are correct, it is an issue. wave (b) is 1.83 times (a) as highlighted on the daily chart above. i have mentioned this issue in the past with a similar structure (and why i did not use the count previously) as well as above in this current post.
however, keep in mind, it is not a rule violation but more a guideline (EWP, 10th Ed. Pg 89) which are two different things. this count would be completely out if it violated the rule.
this is posted here as a potential count. though it is less probable, it still meets several guidelines which still makes it still an acceptable count. is it my preferred? not quite yet.
ewi responded to a question i posted on their forum a while ago on this same matter (again, i have posted on this as well on the blog). here is the response:
--------------
"Question: is it highly unusual for a wave B in an expanded flat to trace out 2.618 x A? thanks!
Answer: It is. Our in-house wave counting program, E-WAVES, starts assigning negative points when B equals 1.4 times wave A, and it eliminates the count altogether at B greater than twice the length of A.
Best regards,
Vadim Pokhlebkin
EWI Message Board Editor
"The World's Largest Market Forecasting Firm"
Elliott Wave International
P.O. Box 1618
Gainesville, GA 30503, USA"
-------------
what i may suspect is occurring is a possible double zz off the 1150 top. the rise up from 1044.50 is an X wave setting up for another ABC down towards the mid 900s. but the only problem with this count is what is the larger structure since the triple zz count is in place off the march 09 lows. possibly a large expanded diagonal (won't go there yet. )
"sounds like you may be leaning toward bumping up the leading diagonal count...
ReplyDeletewhen you post the abc-x-abc, can you throw out your preliminary thoughts on what this means longer term (new multi-year bull market?), as then this is a corrective, not impulsive move? I guess that makes 2003-2004 the correct analogy to today, or even 1987 if you think this is a 4 wave (my example dates may be off, but you know what I'm getting at...)"
absolutely. there is count out there that would indicate an intermediate term bear move down to the mid 900s, followed by a move back to possibly 1200 (which would be a 61.8% retracement from the oct 2007 high). but once that is complete, that would complete primary wave 2. this is a very rare count so i have not posted it yet. but as u mentioned, if i end up labeling abc-x-abc structure, this would have to be one potential setup to look at.