DOW Makes its Move 1/19/2010

[Raklian]

Wow, it's amazing. By looking at where Dow is right now, you can tell that the counting was correct after all. It just dropped like a shoe.

[Steely Dan]

Thanks Tom,

That's absolutely fascinating. I had previously noticed markets go into a holding pattern while waiting for other correlated markets to catch up. I guess this implies that though we can attribute a time range to a given wave degree the 'true' degree is only knowable in the context of related wave patterns. Would I be right in saying the 'absolute' definitive degree (if there is such a thing) is only solvable for an exchange where we have price history starting at it's first trading?

[TS Hennessy]

(01-25-2010 02:40 AM)Steely Dan Wrote:  Thanks Tom,

That's absolutely fascinating. I had previously noticed markets go into a holding pattern while waiting for other correlated markets to catch up. I guess this implies that though we can attribute a time range to a given wave degree the 'true' degree is only knowable in the context of related wave patterns. Would I be right in saying the 'absolute' definitive degree (if there is such a thing) is only solvable for an exchange where we have price history starting at it's first trading?

Fortunately that is not necessarily the case. The new exchange falls
into the, let's call it, "Relative Market" and that is really an applicable
sentiment to governing correlated issues.

Retail Forex fits somehow into the Global Economic Picture at the instant
it is created. It must. So if you can mentally absorb all of the world's
sentiment about relative correlated values of moneys at that instant
you can know precisely what degree the 'absolute' definitive degree is.

Simple, right?

I used to trade IPO's in their heyday. They took off out of the gate and
typically had some wild corrective gyrations. Yet they were eventually
bound by the gravitational forces of their sectors, deflating exhuberance
and so on.

So to locate that definitive degree would be to combine the timespan
which the waves are working along with the rules aided by the specific
differentiations of waves with the NEWR.

In such cases where the historical data is scant it is more challenging to
come up with the count than the degree but they do fit together as
means of solving the puzzle.

[Steely Dan]

Now we come to the interesting bit. Most pundits and bloggers in the Elliott wave fraternity believe a major top is in. Since then we got the usual confusion in the hinterland between waves 4 and 5 and I think it reasonable to conclude that the majority view is that intermediate 1 down is over and we are now bouncing in wave 2. I have been following the Dax myself but have not identified a telltale RTB for the 5th wave so it is tempting to conclude we are in 2 of 5.

I'm trying very hard to unlearn all previous bad habits or assumptions but I'm still working on crystalising an approach with binary questions delivering binary answers in order to completely remove the ghost of subjectivity.

Perhaps a Dow update or even your view of the Dax would be of great use to many seeing as the January top is recent enough to make it easy for us to delve deeply into the data.

Thanks
Dan

[TS Hennessy]

(02-02-2010 03:08 AM)Steely Dan Wrote:  Now we come to the interesting bit. Most pundits and bloggers in the Elliott wave fraternity believe a major top is in. Since then we got the usual confusion in the hinterland between waves 4 and 5 and I think it reasonable to conclude that the majority view is that intermediate 1 down is over and we are now bouncing in wave 2. I have been following the Dax myself but have not identified a telltale RTB for the 5th wave so it is tempting to conclude we are in 2 of 5.

I'm trying very hard to unlearn all previous bad habits or assumptions but I'm still working on crystalising an approach with binary questions delivering binary answers in order to completely remove the ghost of subjectivity.

Perhaps a Dow update or even your view of the Dax would be of great use to many seeing as the January top is recent enough to make it easy for us to delve deeply into the data.

Thanks
Dan

OK, Only because You asked for it...

I'll leave the DAX for someone else at the moment.

Here is my update for DOW


   

[Steely Dan]

Thanks for that Tom,

Most valuable as it's current enough for me to get detailed price data to check against. A quick observation, your wave 1's appear to be on the whole very small (measured against the yardstick of wave relationships that I've become accustomed to), is this just a general feature of real price data which hasn't been properly observed or am I looking too hard for things which may not actually exist?

Thanks
Dan

[TS Hennessy]

(02-05-2010 04:08 AM)Steely Dan Wrote:  Thanks for that Tom,

Most valuable as it's current enough for me to get detailed price data to check against. A quick observation, your wave 1's appear to be on the whole very small (measured against the yardstick of wave relationships that I've become accustomed to), is this just a general feature of real price data which hasn't been properly observed or am I looking too hard for things which may not actually exist?

Thanks
Dan

Tough question but I would have to side with real price data. I cannot
actually know what labels you are accustomed to seeing but I sure do
know how things can take strange form when just about anything is
supposedly allowed to happen. (See the CrazyWaves example in the
book).

Not to mention how any one of the possible errors of standard label
rules might be applied such as allowing irregular correction at wave 2.

Then there is the casual line drawing substitution for real counts and
no recognition of wave 4 overlapping wave 1.

Wave constructs outside the strict actual 5-3-5-3-5 motive or 5-3-5
corrective, Extensions, d,e,f,g,i,w,x,y,z waves.

Time rules created from bad standard rules.

The combined effects of these things are so powerful it is incalculable.

Suffice it to say the market's secret remained for a very long time.