Based on this interpretation I would have to say that this would be considered the best count(preferred count) with the triangle potential as one alternate.
What I have labeled here is a zigzag. I believe many others have this same view.
Adding the channel lines provides a look at where wave c may potentially end up. Wave c, according to Elliot Wave Principle Forecasting Guidlines, will touch the upper channel line that is parallel to the lower channel line that connects the beginning of wave a and end of wave b.
The Fibonacci relationship where c=a places wave c near 890. c=1.618xa=903
Based on the present structure, the channel lines and wave c's relationship to 'a', I would venture to guess that wave 'c' will strongly be attracted to 890 (+/- 5 pts).
Once this is complete, do we head lower or do we see a second zigzag for 'c' of B2? I say we go lower. The 888-890 level previously acted as support and was back tested once on 7/9 before it was slapped down. I guess we are trying for a second time. We shall see.
**Note:
The one concern I do have that may affect this view is that of wave (ii) red of 'c'. In this view and my alternate view, wave (ii) red looks like a triangle. It is pretty choppy and at the 3 min and 1 min, it does look like a triangle.
Per EW Rules, wave 2 in an impulse (wave c always subdivides into an impulse or diagonal; EW rules for zigzags) always subdivides into a zigzag, flat or combination.
Per EW Guidelines, wave 2 is usually a zigzag or a zigzag combination.
So unless wave (ii) red is a combination, it violates the EW Rule for wave 2 and strays from the guidelines, which in turn may add weight to the alternate triangle view.
However, in the end, EW concedes that not all guidelines will be met. The structure that meets the largest number of guidelines should be considered the preferred count.
We will just have to see how the structure develops.
