<![CDATA[New Elliott Wave Rule Forums - All Forums]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/ Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:33:35 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[What if this is a retrace?]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-235.html Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:01:51 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-235.html
So if it is a retrace, then the trend will continue after the retrace is over - I will make money.

However, if it's not a retrace then I might lose money, break even or make some - only time will tell on that one.

No-one knows what will happen next in any market, so to my way of thinking the only way forward is to think in terms of probabilities. If you want to make progress in a random world then you have to skew the probabilities in your favour - usually explained in terms of the concept of positive expectations from a series of bets.

There is loads of stuff available on EWT sites about the most likely % values of retraces in different scenarios. They rarely ever explain the methodology used to collect and analyse the data, plus they all show the data to be used as the possible retrace starts (they show the relative sizes of % retraces from very low % to 99.99999%).

This next section in { } was what triggered my mind into what seems to most others as being a rather counter intuitive way of thinking. I have only enclosed it as background, it is not an essential part of my methodology - it might have zero effect on you.

{ Think about life expectancy. Every time someone born on the same day as you dies, it raises your life expectancy; albeit by a tiny amount. My mother has already exceeded the average life expectancy of those born on the same day as her, by over 10 years and given her age now; has an average life expectancy of over 2 more years. She is a member of a very small sample of those who have survived from the original group but that sample can be looked at in its own right. }

What happens with potential retraces is the higher the % they reach, the more wary people get about them because on the 0 to 100% chart they are moving way beyond what was originally thought to be typical. What they should be doing IMO is looking at them with increasing interest because they might just be those who have survived beyond say 80% but will fail before 100% i.e. the small sample tucked into the tail end of the distribution curve for ALL retraces.

In NEWR different retraces have different levels beyond which they cannot go. For example a 2 cannot go back to the start (0) or a subwave b of an RTB cannot go back to its start (which is also the end of the A).

In NEWR no wave can fail to carry out its task. So logically, if you do pick a retrace then you know where the minimum target is for the continued trend.

Each retrace should have its own distinct flavour e.g. a C of 4 should have subwaves 1 2 3 A RTB C4 5. If it is in an regular 4th then the minimum target is just the end of the previous 3rd. If it is in an irregular 4th then the target is the previous RTB.

Now we get down to reality, the use of the word "should" reflects what we are actaully finding i.e. that counting using the rules is constantly being frustrated by gaps etc....

Then we need to add in the fact that no pattern is a certainty, no matter how good it looks - if you are 95% certain something is a five as opposed to a three; that still leaves 5% for the three.

My way of working is to rate each section independently and then look at how they fit together, in order to get an overall probability rating for the whole pattern.

I prefer high potential % retraces for a combination of reasons. The risk to my bank of them not doing so is getting smaller and smaller. The reward is getting higher and higher. There is more evidence appearing which might confirm that the retrace is over (using NEWR at the appropriate degree).

That move up on S&P didn't look like it was going to stop using NEWR at the local level but it had to stop on the bigger count. There never was any evidence that it was going to stop but at the time we didn't know that, after all it could have been hidden and for once it could have acted in out favour.

The downside was a loss of 1 trade, the upside was mind boggling - it was IMO a must trade opportunity. [See next paragraph for an alternative way of thinking, that could be applied to this sort of situation.]

What if there was no evidence and the payoff wasn't going to be so amazing? Wait and see if it bounces some, the risk will be more, the reward less but the ratio could still be way beyond what you need given the probability of success.

So having got this far, do you have what it takes to put all of that into action; even if it all seems to make sense?

Suppose you think of yourself as a trader and using counts you believe in, you have five consecutive losers. How do you feel?

Now you are a gambler and you have rated each of those bets, by using counts, as having a 20% chance of winning and the payoff for each was always bigger than 10-1. How do you feel?

cheers theory]]>
So if it is a retrace, then the trend will continue after the retrace is over - I will make money.

However, if it's not a retrace then I might lose money, break even or make some - only time will tell on that one.

No-one knows what will happen next in any market, so to my way of thinking the only way forward is to think in terms of probabilities. If you want to make progress in a random world then you have to skew the probabilities in your favour - usually explained in terms of the concept of positive expectations from a series of bets.

There is loads of stuff available on EWT sites about the most likely % values of retraces in different scenarios. They rarely ever explain the methodology used to collect and analyse the data, plus they all show the data to be used as the possible retrace starts (they show the relative sizes of % retraces from very low % to 99.99999%).

This next section in { } was what triggered my mind into what seems to most others as being a rather counter intuitive way of thinking. I have only enclosed it as background, it is not an essential part of my methodology - it might have zero effect on you.

{ Think about life expectancy. Every time someone born on the same day as you dies, it raises your life expectancy; albeit by a tiny amount. My mother has already exceeded the average life expectancy of those born on the same day as her, by over 10 years and given her age now; has an average life expectancy of over 2 more years. She is a member of a very small sample of those who have survived from the original group but that sample can be looked at in its own right. }

What happens with potential retraces is the higher the % they reach, the more wary people get about them because on the 0 to 100% chart they are moving way beyond what was originally thought to be typical. What they should be doing IMO is looking at them with increasing interest because they might just be those who have survived beyond say 80% but will fail before 100% i.e. the small sample tucked into the tail end of the distribution curve for ALL retraces.

In NEWR different retraces have different levels beyond which they cannot go. For example a 2 cannot go back to the start (0) or a subwave b of an RTB cannot go back to its start (which is also the end of the A).

In NEWR no wave can fail to carry out its task. So logically, if you do pick a retrace then you know where the minimum target is for the continued trend.

Each retrace should have its own distinct flavour e.g. a C of 4 should have subwaves 1 2 3 A RTB C4 5. If it is in an regular 4th then the minimum target is just the end of the previous 3rd. If it is in an irregular 4th then the target is the previous RTB.

Now we get down to reality, the use of the word "should" reflects what we are actaully finding i.e. that counting using the rules is constantly being frustrated by gaps etc....

Then we need to add in the fact that no pattern is a certainty, no matter how good it looks - if you are 95% certain something is a five as opposed to a three; that still leaves 5% for the three.

My way of working is to rate each section independently and then look at how they fit together, in order to get an overall probability rating for the whole pattern.

I prefer high potential % retraces for a combination of reasons. The risk to my bank of them not doing so is getting smaller and smaller. The reward is getting higher and higher. There is more evidence appearing which might confirm that the retrace is over (using NEWR at the appropriate degree).

That move up on S&P didn't look like it was going to stop using NEWR at the local level but it had to stop on the bigger count. There never was any evidence that it was going to stop but at the time we didn't know that, after all it could have been hidden and for once it could have acted in out favour.

The downside was a loss of 1 trade, the upside was mind boggling - it was IMO a must trade opportunity. [See next paragraph for an alternative way of thinking, that could be applied to this sort of situation.]

What if there was no evidence and the payoff wasn't going to be so amazing? Wait and see if it bounces some, the risk will be more, the reward less but the ratio could still be way beyond what you need given the probability of success.

So having got this far, do you have what it takes to put all of that into action; even if it all seems to make sense?

Suppose you think of yourself as a trader and using counts you believe in, you have five consecutive losers. How do you feel?

Now you are a gambler and you have rated each of those bets, by using counts, as having a 20% chance of winning and the payoff for each was always bigger than 10-1. How do you feel?

cheers theory]]> <![CDATA[In the land of the gaps......]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-234.html Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:46:35 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-234.html
Not only is it a problem arising as the Market opens and closes but it also happens within some days, e.g. when data is released when the Market is open.

What happened with the S&P count is a good example of the former and the problem area shows up well on any Market open count.

On reflection I think there could be another significant problem area which wouldn't show up on any such chart.

It's when the Market closes and then reopens the next day at the same Price i.e. when there is no gap!

That would give an impression of continuity but in no way reflects what might might have happened had the Market actually been open. There are such occasions when the Futures and SB data shows massive swings back and forth when the Market is closed.

We used to think that light waves were continuous and then Planck came along and the Einstein took it a stage further.

What if markets really do not move in continuous waves, even though they might seem to do so; when we use our present methods of observation?

What if they move in independent chunks but each chunk has those wave properties within it?

Instead of trying to force those independent chunks together to make a big picture, why not accept each one for what it is i.e. an opportunity to use the wave properties until it no longer makes sense to do so?

So how does that relate to gaps? You only use the data after the gap and run with it and let the wave pattern reveal itself from there.

Each chunk can exist for whatever time is needed but at some stage it will end without warning and another will appear. Sometimes they will join seamlessly other times they won't. The seamless ones would then be the potentially misleading ones because they look to be something that they aren't. The start of one just happens to tag onto the end of another but without the wave carrying on across the join.

This has been simmering away in the back of my mind for several months now. Most people, if not all, might think that was the best place for it but I am on a creative roll at the moment, so here goes.......

Cheers theory]]>
Not only is it a problem arising as the Market opens and closes but it also happens within some days, e.g. when data is released when the Market is open.

What happened with the S&P count is a good example of the former and the problem area shows up well on any Market open count.

On reflection I think there could be another significant problem area which wouldn't show up on any such chart.

It's when the Market closes and then reopens the next day at the same Price i.e. when there is no gap!

That would give an impression of continuity but in no way reflects what might might have happened had the Market actually been open. There are such occasions when the Futures and SB data shows massive swings back and forth when the Market is closed.

We used to think that light waves were continuous and then Planck came along and the Einstein took it a stage further.

What if markets really do not move in continuous waves, even though they might seem to do so; when we use our present methods of observation?

What if they move in independent chunks but each chunk has those wave properties within it?

Instead of trying to force those independent chunks together to make a big picture, why not accept each one for what it is i.e. an opportunity to use the wave properties until it no longer makes sense to do so?

So how does that relate to gaps? You only use the data after the gap and run with it and let the wave pattern reveal itself from there.

Each chunk can exist for whatever time is needed but at some stage it will end without warning and another will appear. Sometimes they will join seamlessly other times they won't. The seamless ones would then be the potentially misleading ones because they look to be something that they aren't. The start of one just happens to tag onto the end of another but without the wave carrying on across the join.

This has been simmering away in the back of my mind for several months now. Most people, if not all, might think that was the best place for it but I am on a creative roll at the moment, so here goes.......

Cheers theory]]> <![CDATA[Is the DAX acting as a leading indicator?]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-233.html Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:58:16 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-233.html
I have been watching it more closely from the end of November because it suits my lifestyle/timezone here in the UK. Anyone trading the FTSE which opens at 08:00 Zulu has IMO to be at their screen ready for the DAX opening 1 hr earlier.

I have a load of screenshots saved and am more than willing to share them but only an exchange basis.

I have just been stopped out of a tremendous Short position - usual problem for me; great entry and probably a lousy exit after I lose the count.

Off to play golf now and will check later if anyone is interested.

cheers theory]]>
I have been watching it more closely from the end of November because it suits my lifestyle/timezone here in the UK. Anyone trading the FTSE which opens at 08:00 Zulu has IMO to be at their screen ready for the DAX opening 1 hr earlier.

I have a load of screenshots saved and am more than willing to share them but only an exchange basis.

I have just been stopped out of a tremendous Short position - usual problem for me; great entry and probably a lousy exit after I lose the count.

Off to play golf now and will check later if anyone is interested.

cheers theory]]> <![CDATA[Interpretations of wave 4's]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-221.html Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:29:34 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-221.html
1) For the interpretation of wave 4's under the new rule, is it not similarly plausible that a wave 4 triangle is developing with an 'a' wave that is smaller than the 'b' wave? Looking at the limited number of charts so far, I see mainly triangles interpretations (perhaps there are more key examples available).

2) I notice in some charts in the book (pg 29, 31, 32), wave 4 overlaps wave 2 - is this correct and why is the overlap rule discarded?

I'm a little confused on what i've seen so far and am struggling to understand how the new rule makes it easier to anticipate markets as it appears to increase the number of interpretations (esp when considering overlap)

Cheers

Oz]]>
1) For the interpretation of wave 4's under the new rule, is it not similarly plausible that a wave 4 triangle is developing with an 'a' wave that is smaller than the 'b' wave? Looking at the limited number of charts so far, I see mainly triangles interpretations (perhaps there are more key examples available).

2) I notice in some charts in the book (pg 29, 31, 32), wave 4 overlaps wave 2 - is this correct and why is the overlap rule discarded?

I'm a little confused on what i've seen so far and am struggling to understand how the new rule makes it easier to anticipate markets as it appears to increase the number of interpretations (esp when considering overlap)

Cheers

Oz]]> <![CDATA[Some Info about STAR]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-220.html Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:52:12 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-220.html
I want to clarify some things about my commercial
trading system which is mentioned in the NEWR book
as well as talk to expectations for this forum which
I may or may not fulfill.

My trading system's called STAR at Supertradesystem.com
and STAR is short for Super Trades At Retrace. The NEWR
was discovered before STAR but AFTER an EW key I found.

Had it not been for this key niether the NEWR or STAR
would have been found so they are related in that way.
STAR uses the same numerical precision that drives the
waves and forms fractals and probably more we don't know.

I get a fair number of inquiries indicating that readers
of the NEWR book have gotten the impression that STAR
may take their understanding of EW to a higher level by
virtue of the fact that it is powered by the key.

Below I answer this issue in an email response I am sharing
here as well as give more info about what STAR is and does.
The main point that I focus on in my published materials is the
production. When we share trades at Supertradersclub that
produce like our August 2011 watchlist trades did at 9,880
pips those members are happy and when NEWR helps you
count for a good series of trades NEWR readers are happy.

In doing this here I am touting STAR while providing clarity
for that issue but this brings me right to the expectations
about this forum. There was a comment by one of our members
that this is not a STAR board but a NEWR board. This came
after some discussions relating to speed changes in waves.

I really admire the technical expertise this trader shows in
how he trades NEWR and I have visited other places that he
discusses EW as well as some older technical analysis work he
has put up on a personal site. We seem to have a lot in common.

This is what this site, as well as STAR, is all about really, isn't it?
Our common story and travels as traders. This site is about me, and
it is about you. It's even about Mr. Elliott.

It is about the challenges we face as traders and how we deal
with them. If I am involved then it is about technical analysis,
EW and the New Rule, Fibbonacci, fractals and numerics, and it
must be about STAR because that is who I am. (and it's my forum) ;P

The prominent focus here has and will of course remain EW and
NEWR. If I mention something else please realize that I think
it is relevant. When I trade I use STAR and with good reasons
but I have not made much mention of what my trades are so it
should not interfere and if I get a plug in for STAR please
indulge me this. It is gratifying to see that my experiences
are helping other traders, whether with NEWR or STAR.

So let me get to it then and share a portion of the email and
the reply (and then I can refer people here to save my wrists)...

Quote:*would like to share with you that i have just exited shorting eur/usd
for 230pips in 1 day, applying fractal principals and your 'new' rule.
i'm counting the 3mins chart for wave 1 to finish properly, to then use
wave 2 to set up for wave 3.

I'm really looking forward to reading the STAR ebook and see for myself how
your 'keys' are going to further identify the trades!

hope to hear from you soon.

thank you.

warm regards,

JM




Hi JM,

Thank You for your continued interest.

I am glad that you have made some good use of NEWR!

It sounds like you may wish to hold off on picking up STAR.

...

The wave key powers STAR but STAR is definitely not
an EW implementation. There is no counting done at all.

Like what you are doing, it gets in early on a new trend
by getting a prime retracement. The thing that created
a need once I knew about the key and the new rule is
the recognition that money without time is "almost" as
bad as not having either in sufficient quantities.

So I began to see what I was doing and that made me
realize that I was trading my life to some extent for the
ability to call a top or bottom. Great to accomplish but I
also have a lovely family.

The way the market works in the area most expressing
the NEWR makes for a ton of lost time. I saw that also
in any spot where I was a bit off the mark, that being a
bit early or late meant I would have been better off if I
got in on a retracement.

There is also one more aspect and that is the best use
of one's equity. In the fight over whether bears or bulls
own the prospective pivot the uncertainty chews up time.

During this initial stage of trend change there is not so
much equity growth because of that first retracement.

I was basically spending a ton of time counting and then
a ton of time waiting for any payoff. To add more counting
time while 1 and 2 complete was not the solution that made
the most sense to me.

I took what I had with the key and some other numerical
discoveries I'd made based on observing the key and
began creating tools to capture the retracement at a spot
that the NEWR would indicate and then the key would
be used to "adjust the frequency" like radio tuning.

This worked fantastically and it was just something which
I used. Nobody even knew about the NEWR yet. Time
freedom that comes from this approach was phenomenal
and I had my life back again. Some rough count got me in
an area and the signal from my tools let me know the rest.

Of course I tweaked it a few minor ways but the stuff from
the observations of the key has for years been something
which amazed me. Things just work, they click into place
like they were waiting to be built.

Then something happened I was not expecting. I started
to notice that looking through the historical area before
the pivots I had worked on there was a repeating pattern.

(I know you are thinking, "Of course, fractals".) 8- )

It was related to fractals but something with more of a
regulating character. There was a specific nature which
the fib-based tool displayed on all the major pivots. This
collection of behaviors I have called traits was there on
the good pivots that were major trend changes and they
were not on the minor corrections or continuation pullbacks.

I began to notice much more because of recognizing that
period setting adjustments which kept to a family of fib
factors were able to match the speeds of the waves.

STAR was being built before my eyes. The realization that
all of my counting expertise was becoming unnecessary,
while humbling, was quite pleasing to me when I realized
that STAR could be used by anyone who never even heard
of EW. EW is not easy and STAR is also some work, so
please don't get me wrong.

Well that is how STAR came into being. I wanted to explain
because it seemed you may have had an idea that STAR
and the wave key that powers it would take you further into
counting experience.

It is a trading tool which I rely on and has taken over my
trading to the extent that I only count for the sake of the
NEWR forum on instruments that for the most part do not
even trade (I did a couple forex counts on the NEWR
forum and was trading one of them but this came from a
STAR prompting, not an EW one).

Surprisingly, the guy who discovered the NEWR now
only counts for sport. Kind of funny huh?

That's how good STAR is. That is my opinion and it is biased.
I was just cleaning up our watchlist and reorganized some
tabs to make it easier to use. I noticed that we had a very
good single day of setup hunting. Several traders entered
setups on Feb. 25th 2011 that had gone on to trigger trades
after that date.

From triggers in March through September these trades have
so far amassed 5,255 pips. All that from one good hunting
day's work. Trades triggered in August 2011 have a tally of
9,880 pips. Some of these were for you. Unless you are going
to be awake 24/5 you will miss some. But the watchlist really
helps make it easier. What one side of the world finds the
other side of the world may reap and v/v.

Have a great weekend.

ATB
Tom
www.supertradesystem.com
http://www.supertradersclub.com
http://www.newelliottwaverule.org



So there it is - STAR is not counting but a manual system
and it matches the speed of the move first and then performs
the analysis. The info for each custom tuned signal comes
directly from the numerical precision already there. Each
snapshot of the signal being triggered looks the same but
each is unique for that spot and the tools tell you where
to enter (not with an up/down arrow but a signal line
using mechanical steps with hard criteria).

In the near future I am planning to write a new book titled,
"The Trouble with Today's Technical Analysis". That will be
offered on the Supertradesystem site and will show why
there is such a high failure rate in trading. The things STAR
does solve the problems of TA.

Smile]]>
I want to clarify some things about my commercial
trading system which is mentioned in the NEWR book
as well as talk to expectations for this forum which
I may or may not fulfill.

My trading system's called STAR at Supertradesystem.com
and STAR is short for Super Trades At Retrace. The NEWR
was discovered before STAR but AFTER an EW key I found.

Had it not been for this key niether the NEWR or STAR
would have been found so they are related in that way.
STAR uses the same numerical precision that drives the
waves and forms fractals and probably more we don't know.

I get a fair number of inquiries indicating that readers
of the NEWR book have gotten the impression that STAR
may take their understanding of EW to a higher level by
virtue of the fact that it is powered by the key.

Below I answer this issue in an email response I am sharing
here as well as give more info about what STAR is and does.
The main point that I focus on in my published materials is the
production. When we share trades at Supertradersclub that
produce like our August 2011 watchlist trades did at 9,880
pips those members are happy and when NEWR helps you
count for a good series of trades NEWR readers are happy.

In doing this here I am touting STAR while providing clarity
for that issue but this brings me right to the expectations
about this forum. There was a comment by one of our members
that this is not a STAR board but a NEWR board. This came
after some discussions relating to speed changes in waves.

I really admire the technical expertise this trader shows in
how he trades NEWR and I have visited other places that he
discusses EW as well as some older technical analysis work he
has put up on a personal site. We seem to have a lot in common.

This is what this site, as well as STAR, is all about really, isn't it?
Our common story and travels as traders. This site is about me, and
it is about you. It's even about Mr. Elliott.

It is about the challenges we face as traders and how we deal
with them. If I am involved then it is about technical analysis,
EW and the New Rule, Fibbonacci, fractals and numerics, and it
must be about STAR because that is who I am. (and it's my forum) ;P

The prominent focus here has and will of course remain EW and
NEWR. If I mention something else please realize that I think
it is relevant. When I trade I use STAR and with good reasons
but I have not made much mention of what my trades are so it
should not interfere and if I get a plug in for STAR please
indulge me this. It is gratifying to see that my experiences
are helping other traders, whether with NEWR or STAR.

So let me get to it then and share a portion of the email and
the reply (and then I can refer people here to save my wrists)...

Quote:*would like to share with you that i have just exited shorting eur/usd
for 230pips in 1 day, applying fractal principals and your 'new' rule.
i'm counting the 3mins chart for wave 1 to finish properly, to then use
wave 2 to set up for wave 3.

I'm really looking forward to reading the STAR ebook and see for myself how
your 'keys' are going to further identify the trades!

hope to hear from you soon.

thank you.

warm regards,

JM




Hi JM,

Thank You for your continued interest.

I am glad that you have made some good use of NEWR!

It sounds like you may wish to hold off on picking up STAR.

...

The wave key powers STAR but STAR is definitely not
an EW implementation. There is no counting done at all.

Like what you are doing, it gets in early on a new trend
by getting a prime retracement. The thing that created
a need once I knew about the key and the new rule is
the recognition that money without time is "almost" as
bad as not having either in sufficient quantities.

So I began to see what I was doing and that made me
realize that I was trading my life to some extent for the
ability to call a top or bottom. Great to accomplish but I
also have a lovely family.

The way the market works in the area most expressing
the NEWR makes for a ton of lost time. I saw that also
in any spot where I was a bit off the mark, that being a
bit early or late meant I would have been better off if I
got in on a retracement.

There is also one more aspect and that is the best use
of one's equity. In the fight over whether bears or bulls
own the prospective pivot the uncertainty chews up time.

During this initial stage of trend change there is not so
much equity growth because of that first retracement.

I was basically spending a ton of time counting and then
a ton of time waiting for any payoff. To add more counting
time while 1 and 2 complete was not the solution that made
the most sense to me.

I took what I had with the key and some other numerical
discoveries I'd made based on observing the key and
began creating tools to capture the retracement at a spot
that the NEWR would indicate and then the key would
be used to "adjust the frequency" like radio tuning.

This worked fantastically and it was just something which
I used. Nobody even knew about the NEWR yet. Time
freedom that comes from this approach was phenomenal
and I had my life back again. Some rough count got me in
an area and the signal from my tools let me know the rest.

Of course I tweaked it a few minor ways but the stuff from
the observations of the key has for years been something
which amazed me. Things just work, they click into place
like they were waiting to be built.

Then something happened I was not expecting. I started
to notice that looking through the historical area before
the pivots I had worked on there was a repeating pattern.

(I know you are thinking, "Of course, fractals".) 8- )

It was related to fractals but something with more of a
regulating character. There was a specific nature which
the fib-based tool displayed on all the major pivots. This
collection of behaviors I have called traits was there on
the good pivots that were major trend changes and they
were not on the minor corrections or continuation pullbacks.

I began to notice much more because of recognizing that
period setting adjustments which kept to a family of fib
factors were able to match the speeds of the waves.

STAR was being built before my eyes. The realization that
all of my counting expertise was becoming unnecessary,
while humbling, was quite pleasing to me when I realized
that STAR could be used by anyone who never even heard
of EW. EW is not easy and STAR is also some work, so
please don't get me wrong.

Well that is how STAR came into being. I wanted to explain
because it seemed you may have had an idea that STAR
and the wave key that powers it would take you further into
counting experience.

It is a trading tool which I rely on and has taken over my
trading to the extent that I only count for the sake of the
NEWR forum on instruments that for the most part do not
even trade (I did a couple forex counts on the NEWR
forum and was trading one of them but this came from a
STAR prompting, not an EW one).

Surprisingly, the guy who discovered the NEWR now
only counts for sport. Kind of funny huh?

That's how good STAR is. That is my opinion and it is biased.
I was just cleaning up our watchlist and reorganized some
tabs to make it easier to use. I noticed that we had a very
good single day of setup hunting. Several traders entered
setups on Feb. 25th 2011 that had gone on to trigger trades
after that date.

From triggers in March through September these trades have
so far amassed 5,255 pips. All that from one good hunting
day's work. Trades triggered in August 2011 have a tally of
9,880 pips. Some of these were for you. Unless you are going
to be awake 24/5 you will miss some. But the watchlist really
helps make it easier. What one side of the world finds the
other side of the world may reap and v/v.

Have a great weekend.

ATB
Tom
www.supertradesystem.com
http://www.supertradersclub.com
http://www.newelliottwaverule.org



So there it is - STAR is not counting but a manual system
and it matches the speed of the move first and then performs
the analysis. The info for each custom tuned signal comes
directly from the numerical precision already there. Each
snapshot of the signal being triggered looks the same but
each is unique for that spot and the tools tell you where
to enter (not with an up/down arrow but a signal line
using mechanical steps with hard criteria).

In the near future I am planning to write a new book titled,
"The Trouble with Today's Technical Analysis". That will be
offered on the Supertradesystem site and will show why
there is such a high failure rate in trading. The things STAR
does solve the problems of TA.

Smile]]> <![CDATA[Can anyone count that drop yesterday?]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-211.html Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:37:25 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-211.html
The first bit is "straight forward" IMO, 24 hr data Nov 1st to 8th.

(Approx levels since they will vary from supplier to supplier.)

Start 5335
End 1 5496
End 2 5381
End 3 5602
End 4 5430

Now for the 5th. I am happy with the start 1 2 3 A, then the a of the RTB, then the b of the RTB, then it got difficult (it was dancing to the tune of the S&P at this time).

One option was the next move up was a completed five, for the c of the RTB.

The other option was to shorten the c of the RTB - based on a section where my data had a lot of same level stuff (could have been anything).

So what was the C4 of the 5th of the c of the RTB became the C4 of the whole final 5th

Following on from that; what was the 5th of the c of the RTB, became the 5th of the 5th.

So those last two small moves, end up stuck on the end of some much bigger ones; when viewed on a timescale that lets you see all eight days.

End 5 ???? 5650

Now 5430 was the start of another count and that level got hammered yesterday, so what follows from that is still possible.

However, using an extreme case of my reward, risk, probability of success approach led to me thinking about that completed five.

Given where we think it is in the bigger picture, what must happen?

Well it can't get retrended because that would mean it was an A in a 1 2 3 A RTB C4 5 count and no-one has raised that as a possibility.

So IF it is a completed five, the FTSE must bounce before it hits 5335.

This morning it bounced off 5337 .........., which is either a total coincidence, or a level acting as support when it needn't do (psychological rather than structural) or my analysis could indeed be correct.

The maths at the time was interesting and allowed me to wait for a mini bounce before trading instead of standing in front of a runaway.This will now form a part of every "brick wall" trade I carry out while watching the charts.

Even when it came back up through 5345, the reward:risk was still around 30:1 and I rated the probability in the range of 5% to 10%.

Can anyone count that drop yesterday as a completed three? Or anything else for that matter?

It has me beaten apart from one section that I think is a C4 which I was trying to find yesterday.

It was forming as I was looking in the previous data. What a costly error that turned out to be in terms of lost profit. Confused

cheers theory]]>
The first bit is "straight forward" IMO, 24 hr data Nov 1st to 8th.

(Approx levels since they will vary from supplier to supplier.)

Start 5335
End 1 5496
End 2 5381
End 3 5602
End 4 5430

Now for the 5th. I am happy with the start 1 2 3 A, then the a of the RTB, then the b of the RTB, then it got difficult (it was dancing to the tune of the S&P at this time).

One option was the next move up was a completed five, for the c of the RTB.

The other option was to shorten the c of the RTB - based on a section where my data had a lot of same level stuff (could have been anything).

So what was the C4 of the 5th of the c of the RTB became the C4 of the whole final 5th

Following on from that; what was the 5th of the c of the RTB, became the 5th of the 5th.

So those last two small moves, end up stuck on the end of some much bigger ones; when viewed on a timescale that lets you see all eight days.

End 5 ???? 5650

Now 5430 was the start of another count and that level got hammered yesterday, so what follows from that is still possible.

However, using an extreme case of my reward, risk, probability of success approach led to me thinking about that completed five.

Given where we think it is in the bigger picture, what must happen?

Well it can't get retrended because that would mean it was an A in a 1 2 3 A RTB C4 5 count and no-one has raised that as a possibility.

So IF it is a completed five, the FTSE must bounce before it hits 5335.

This morning it bounced off 5337 .........., which is either a total coincidence, or a level acting as support when it needn't do (psychological rather than structural) or my analysis could indeed be correct.

The maths at the time was interesting and allowed me to wait for a mini bounce before trading instead of standing in front of a runaway.This will now form a part of every "brick wall" trade I carry out while watching the charts.

Even when it came back up through 5345, the reward:risk was still around 30:1 and I rated the probability in the range of 5% to 10%.

Can anyone count that drop yesterday as a completed three? Or anything else for that matter?

It has me beaten apart from one section that I think is a C4 which I was trying to find yesterday.

It was forming as I was looking in the previous data. What a costly error that turned out to be in terms of lost profit. Confused

cheers theory]]> <![CDATA[Private Messages]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-206.html Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:39:01 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-206.html <![CDATA[Wave degrees and associated time]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-205.html Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:01:54 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-205.html
Question topic 1)

When looking at the Wave Degrees chart and trying to match labels with the stated timeframes, does the stated time apply to a whole 1,2,3,4,5,A,B,C cycle?

Or, does the time frame apply to each wave in that cycle?

Take the Minuette degree for example:

Would it take Weeks to Months for a complete 1,2,3,4,5,A,B,C sequence or weeks to months for each wave in the cycle i.e. the 1?

Question topic 2)

It seems that the wave 5s seem to take proportionally more time than the rest of the waves. Should the stated timeframes be applied to only a certain wave or group of waves in the sequence?

i.e. Minuette 1-3 should take Weeks to Months

or Minuette 5 should take weeks to months]]>
Question topic 1)

When looking at the Wave Degrees chart and trying to match labels with the stated timeframes, does the stated time apply to a whole 1,2,3,4,5,A,B,C cycle?

Or, does the time frame apply to each wave in that cycle?

Take the Minuette degree for example:

Would it take Weeks to Months for a complete 1,2,3,4,5,A,B,C sequence or weeks to months for each wave in the cycle i.e. the 1?

Question topic 2)

It seems that the wave 5s seem to take proportionally more time than the rest of the waves. Should the stated timeframes be applied to only a certain wave or group of waves in the sequence?

i.e. Minuette 1-3 should take Weeks to Months

or Minuette 5 should take weeks to months]]> <![CDATA[Navigating the forum]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-204.html Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:24:14 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-204.html
Is there a way to jump to a specific page in a thread? I'm trying to go through the S&P count thread, and it appears to only give you a few pages at a time. If I want to get to the middle of the thread, do I have to click the furthest page 10 or so times?

Thanks
Eric]]>
Is there a way to jump to a specific page in a thread? I'm trying to go through the S&P count thread, and it appears to only give you a few pages at a time. If I want to get to the middle of the thread, do I have to click the furthest page 10 or so times?

Thanks
Eric]]> <![CDATA[Metatrader 4 Data provider]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-203.html Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:11:32 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-203.html <![CDATA[Fonts for labelling in MT4/MT5]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-202.html Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:21:00 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-202.html
I've create fonts name according to Tom NEWR ebook "Degree Table".

Just copy all those into your computer fonts folder. Eg : C:/ Windows> Fonts

And choose font type according to wave degree in your Mt4/Mt5.

---------

Add: Thank you very much Tom for this RTB rule! We see wave structure much clearer..Tom may suggest we have standardised colour for each wave degree.

Best Regard

Steve

Edit : Sorry, some of the previous posted fonts have some "defect" : a chop at the top of fonts : Grand Supercycle, Supercycle, Cycle, Primary, Intermediate, Minor, Minute. Please delete the previous one and copy/paste into the folder & restart the Mt4/Mt5

Edit : Dear All NEWR elliottician,

Here are the latest fonts named for easy access, named accordingly from highest degree to lowest degree of wave.. E.g @01Grand Supercycle... @15Sub-Nano idea from BogieShy

Best Regard

Steve

.zip  NEWR @1-15 label.zip (Size: 143.24 KB / Downloads: 25) ]]>
I've create fonts name according to Tom NEWR ebook "Degree Table".

Just copy all those into your computer fonts folder. Eg : C:/ Windows> Fonts

And choose font type according to wave degree in your Mt4/Mt5.

---------

Add: Thank you very much Tom for this RTB rule! We see wave structure much clearer..Tom may suggest we have standardised colour for each wave degree.

Best Regard

Steve

Edit : Sorry, some of the previous posted fonts have some "defect" : a chop at the top of fonts : Grand Supercycle, Supercycle, Cycle, Primary, Intermediate, Minor, Minute. Please delete the previous one and copy/paste into the folder & restart the Mt4/Mt5

Edit : Dear All NEWR elliottician,

Here are the latest fonts named for easy access, named accordingly from highest degree to lowest degree of wave.. E.g @01Grand Supercycle... @15Sub-Nano idea from BogieShy

Best Regard

Steve

.zip  NEWR @1-15 label.zip (Size: 143.24 KB / Downloads: 25) ]]> <![CDATA[human + computer]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-199.html Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:23:13 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-199.html A point was being made about human computer interaction which reminded me of this forum and Tom's trading systems, this one & STAR.

After 1996 when Kasparov was defeated by Deep Blue, he had the idea for freestyle chess:
from wikipedia
Quote:After this spectacular match, and many other matches against computers, Garry Kasparov had the idea to invent a new form of chess in which humans and computers co-operate, instead of contending with each other. Kasparov named this form of chess "Advanced Chess".

There was a competition called Zacks in which grandmasters and supercomputer would compete against anyone in this Freestyle chess in which anything goes. Kasparov said you could take moves from the devil if you wanted ;-)

Quote:Dark horse ZackS wins Freestyle Chess Tournament
19.06.2005 – The computer-assisted PAL/CSS Freestyle Chess Tournament, staged on Playchess.com, ended with a shock win by two amateurs: Steven Cramton, 1685 USCF and Zackary Stephen, 1398 USCF, using three computers for analysis, defeated teams of strong grandmasters all the way to victory in the finals. We bring you a first flash report with games and results.

Had some links, but you can look up in google.

Anyway the winner was 3 moderately skilled chess players with a moderate chess program and 3 PC's defeating supercomputers & chess grandmasters!!

So the takeway was that
moderately skilled human + moderate computer program + good process
defeated
skilled human + skilled computer + poor process

Anyway I was reminded of the trading setups that Tom has been developing. He has really made amazing processes so that not so skilled humans (like myself) can take advantage and defeat the big boys with their supercomputer like HFTs, legions of programmers and even super intelligent fundamental macro analysts. What matters is getting tools that enable and augment our analysis. Not something that does the work for us!

Kudos to Tom!]]> A point was being made about human computer interaction which reminded me of this forum and Tom's trading systems, this one & STAR.

After 1996 when Kasparov was defeated by Deep Blue, he had the idea for freestyle chess:
from wikipedia
Quote:After this spectacular match, and many other matches against computers, Garry Kasparov had the idea to invent a new form of chess in which humans and computers co-operate, instead of contending with each other. Kasparov named this form of chess "Advanced Chess".

There was a competition called Zacks in which grandmasters and supercomputer would compete against anyone in this Freestyle chess in which anything goes. Kasparov said you could take moves from the devil if you wanted ;-)

Quote:Dark horse ZackS wins Freestyle Chess Tournament
19.06.2005 – The computer-assisted PAL/CSS Freestyle Chess Tournament, staged on Playchess.com, ended with a shock win by two amateurs: Steven Cramton, 1685 USCF and Zackary Stephen, 1398 USCF, using three computers for analysis, defeated teams of strong grandmasters all the way to victory in the finals. We bring you a first flash report with games and results.

Had some links, but you can look up in google.

Anyway the winner was 3 moderately skilled chess players with a moderate chess program and 3 PC's defeating supercomputers & chess grandmasters!!

So the takeway was that
moderately skilled human + moderate computer program + good process
defeated
skilled human + skilled computer + poor process

Anyway I was reminded of the trading setups that Tom has been developing. He has really made amazing processes so that not so skilled humans (like myself) can take advantage and defeat the big boys with their supercomputer like HFTs, legions of programmers and even super intelligent fundamental macro analysts. What matters is getting tools that enable and augment our analysis. Not something that does the work for us!

Kudos to Tom!]]> <![CDATA[100% retracement of 2]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-198.html Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:45:36 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-198.html rules is that 2 cannot exceed 100% retracement (to violate origin point). Can it be exactly 100%?

I apologize if this is in the forums somewhere. I checked general elliot wave literature and could only find the rule that 2 retracement should not exceed the origin.]]> rules is that 2 cannot exceed 100% retracement (to violate origin point). Can it be exactly 100%?

I apologize if this is in the forums somewhere. I checked general elliot wave literature and could only find the rule that 2 retracement should not exceed the origin.]]> <![CDATA[Hello everyone]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-197.html Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:35:24 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-197.html
Anyway I think the discovery of the rule is incredible. There was always something too voodoo about Elliot Wave, but this is very concrete. Congratulations to Tom, don't know if he will get the wide recognition, but this work is genius.]]>
Anyway I think the discovery of the rule is incredible. There was always something too voodoo about Elliot Wave, but this is very concrete. Congratulations to Tom, don't know if he will get the wide recognition, but this work is genius.]]> <![CDATA[Hi Fellow Traders]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-192.html Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:01:44 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-192.html <![CDATA[Double zigzags]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-188.html Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:15:42 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-188.html
I've been searching for a decent EW forum, but there just aren't that many. This one seems nice enough. Smile

I have a question about double zigzags. None of the books seem to have the answer. In a double zigzag W-X-Y, must Y always exceed W, or is it just a guideline?]]>
I've been searching for a decent EW forum, but there just aren't that many. This one seems nice enough. Smile

I have a question about double zigzags. None of the books seem to have the answer. In a double zigzag W-X-Y, must Y always exceed W, or is it just a guideline?]]> <![CDATA[lost over night detail]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-174.html Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:14:12 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-174.html <![CDATA[It was only the RTB........]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-173.html Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:08:21 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-173.html Looks like we have all gone our own way and stopped posting our counts. For me the reason is just the same as last time, two few people putting their head above the parapet and too many looking without comment.

I have a tendency to miscount and call what is the end of the RTB, as the end of the final 5th - most ften happens when the RTB is spikey and the counter trend moves are difficult to analyse.

So I think I've found the pivot and am trading the 1st of the next move in the opposite direction.

Instead of relaxing and mentally switching off, I now watch this move very carefully.

What don't I want to see? Anything that tells me that THIS is the C4 and the final 5th isn't over.

A five which then gets retrended, must be A and then part of RTB, so must be in a 5th or C.

IF this happens early enough in the move, the probability that it is the C4, can be very high indeed. C4s can be ridden profitably but you know what must come next.....

cheers theory]]> Looks like we have all gone our own way and stopped posting our counts. For me the reason is just the same as last time, two few people putting their head above the parapet and too many looking without comment.

I have a tendency to miscount and call what is the end of the RTB, as the end of the final 5th - most ften happens when the RTB is spikey and the counter trend moves are difficult to analyse.

So I think I've found the pivot and am trading the 1st of the next move in the opposite direction.

Instead of relaxing and mentally switching off, I now watch this move very carefully.

What don't I want to see? Anything that tells me that THIS is the C4 and the final 5th isn't over.

A five which then gets retrended, must be A and then part of RTB, so must be in a 5th or C.

IF this happens early enough in the move, the probability that it is the C4, can be very high indeed. C4s can be ridden profitably but you know what must come next.....

cheers theory]]> <![CDATA[Hi French living in the UK]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-172.html Thu, 09 Jun 2011 08:48:04 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-172.html Thank you for sharing !]]> Thank you for sharing !]]> <![CDATA[Windows]]> http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-163.html Thu, 02 Jun 2011 08:12:55 +0000 http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thread-163.html
Dan

.jpg  bevelled-surgery-small.jpg (Size: 414.75 KB / Downloads: 0)

.jpg  bevelled-surgery-window2.jpg (Size: 425.24 KB / Downloads: 0) ]]>
Dan

.jpg  bevelled-surgery-small.jpg (Size: 414.75 KB / Downloads: 0)

.jpg  bevelled-surgery-window2.jpg (Size: 425.24 KB / Downloads: 0) ]]>