100% retracement of 2

[amala]

One of the 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.

[amala]

(10-07-2011 09:45 AM)amala Wrote:  One of the 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.

A related question, can C be 100% of A? or even the 5 wave just be 100% or does it have to exceed point 4 ?

Here is the example, is it correct? Points a,c,ii & II are 1214.50, it was not exceeded.

So we can put II on the first level and then have a valid i,ii?

   

I am trying to make this a general question.
thanks,
amala

[TS Hennessy]

(10-07-2011 10:03 AM)amala Wrote:  

(10-07-2011 09:45 AM)amala Wrote:  One of the 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.

A related question, can C be 100% of A? or even the 5 wave just be 100% or does it have to exceed point 4 ?

Here is the example, is it correct? Points a,c,ii & II are 1214.50, it was not exceeded.

So we can put II on the first level and then have a valid i,ii?



I am trying to make this a general question.
thanks,
amala

Waves cannot ever fail. There are certain waves which may truncate.
See this post for more info:
http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thr...ml#pid1001

Without knowing exactly what you found, I would guess that it was
one of these truncations. I am assuming enough development has
already followed the event so the results have been SET and counts
can be assured.

Wave 2 cannot match wave 1's travel. Counts which would argue
otherwise are in error and having not accounted for the NEWR would
certainly cause such errors.

The wave prior was not finished OR there could also be a case for
hidden data such as occurs in pre-and post-session trading or futures
driven trading where the wave finishes 'off-chart'.

Wave C can only exceed wave A travel when it is in a non-RTB 4th or
a 2nd. In an RTB 4th, C can be terminating anywhere from just after
it's start (with complete development) to all the way back to just
shy of Wave 1 start in the same degree as that RTB 4th wave's degree.
See a diagram in this post to help see this:
http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thr...html#pid79

That brings us to an important other "exception" to that same EW
literature you mention.

The NEWR shows what is Actually happening in the waves.

Some rules are bound to get their feelings hurt however you and I are
now free to count the waves as they really occur. One of the most
notable NEWR exceptions to the EW rules is already an exception
made FOR that rule where leveraged instruments are concerned.

That is the contention made in mainstream EW that 4 cannot violate
1's travel, except where leveraged instruments are concerned.

Well I have done a fair amount of work with the differences because
my STAR trading system and other research showed that there were
actually different "frequencies" at work between stocks and leveraged
and the indicator work included in that research bore this fact out in
the way that what worked for stocks did not work for leveraged.

There was a solution to this and it was a matter of changing that
frequency (this is the reason STAR is specifically NOT for stocks). Now
the same tools work identically as I had designed them for stocks.

So while I agree that 4 can and does at times overlap 1 in leveraged
instruments, there were 2 very important observations coming from
NEWR. Now before I mention these 2 observations let me say that
the NEWR had not been found merely by more detail, although that
certainly was a prerequisite.

It was the discovery of the key to EW which the waves themselves
generate which regulated certain aspects that made the difference.
This is what gave the solid foundation to NEWR and my trading
system and why NEWR will stand up to the most rigorous testing.

I am convinced that EW will someday be proven scientifically AS a
science rather than just a 'theory' based upon the NEWR.

Now for those observations about EW based upon work with both types,
non-leveraged and leveraged instruments...

1) Wave 4 has the freedom to go anywhere within the wave* of its own
degree if it is a non-RTB and, to restate the NEWR, even outside that
wave's degree in its B subwave if it is an RTB.
* 'Anywhere within' excludes the exact match of wave 1 start.

2) Leveraged and non-leveraged do NOT follow any different rules or
cause exceptions to be required in order to count the waves for one
versus the other using the exact same techniques. They both follow
EW identically, just at different frequencies, which is related to speed
(how far price travels in a given amount of time).

The STAR trading system happens to work in that realm by matching
the speed of a move prior to doing a signal analysis.

Hope that gives a foundation for how NEWR relates to standard EW.

[amala]

Tom

Thank you for going into detail with that question. You wrote:

Quote:Wave 2 cannot match wave 1's travel. Counts which would argue
otherwise are in error and having not accounted for the NEWR would
certainly cause such errors.

This seems to be in contradiction to

Quote:Wave 2 will not retrace more than 100% of wave 1.

(my emphasis)
from the summary post: EWP and NEWR rules


In other words the summary post leaves exactly 100%, but your post above says it cannot match (what I see as 100%)

Can you clarify please.

(I lean towards placing them as 2's of a new trend, do we have to make the choice consistently or could it be either?)

[3kings]

(10-11-2011 06:14 AM)amala Wrote:  Tom

Thank you for going into detail with that question. You wrote:

Quote:Wave 2 cannot match wave 1's travel. Counts which would argue
otherwise are in error and having not accounted for the NEWR would
certainly cause such errors.

This seems to be in contradiction to

Quote:Wave 2 will not retrace more than 100% of wave 1.

(my emphasis)
from the summary post: EWP and NEWR rules


In other words the summary post leaves exactly 100%, but your post above says it cannot match (what I see as 100%)

Can you clarify please.

(I lean towards placing them as 2's of a new trend, do we have to make the choice consistently or could it be either?)

Tom was just answering your particular case. This must be so because both are right. Wave 2 cannot match exactly nor go beyond the start of 1.

That only leaves the possibility of what Tom stated, that an exact match of a supposed wave 2 with wave 1 start disqualifies it as a wave 2, no choosing required. It also must follow that the supposed wave 1 start was either not really the end of the former wave as thought but only the end of a subwave of it or it is the end of the former wave but an A wave should follow, not wave 1.

These happen when it is a 5th wave and you have a truncation or a non-RTB 4th has matched the end of 3 in its b wave.

3kings

[amala]

So if price action turns around from a double top, you will use the second high as the fifth wave end and origin of new price action?

I think it's a bold statement to say price action will never end with a perfect double top and then reverse from there.

Can we get this put in the summary page so it is clear? Seems you are left with 3 options:

* 100% retracement of wave 2
* wave 5 which does not exceed wave 3 (truncated)
* the move is mislabeled, this has to be the start of an A wave.

In the current case with SPX, it did not happen, because we got more accurate data, but i suppose it could happen in future? Especially on smaller time frames?

[TS Hennessy]

(10-11-2011 05:28 PM)amala Wrote:  So if price action turns around from a double top, you will use the second high as the fifth wave end and origin of new price action?

Only if appropriate. That is one possibility. The other would be a wave 4 in which the B wave matches the start of A. Those are count
related but you could have data related issues.

Quote:I think it's a bold statement to say price action will never end with a perfect double top and then reverse from there.

That's not being claimed.

Quote:Can we get this put in the summary page so it is clear?

I have edited the line that needed to be more precisely stated as you suggest.
It now reads, "Wave 2 will not retrace to or more than 100% of wave 1.".

Quote:Seems you are left with 3 options:

* 100% retracement of wave 2

This has already been deemed not possible.

Quote:* wave 5 which does not exceed wave 3 (truncated)
* the move is mislabeled, this has to be the start of an A wave.

In the current case with SPX, it did not happen, because we got more accurate data, but i suppose it could happen in future? Especially on smaller time frames?

The timeframe will not alter the wave structure. You mentioned a
statement being bold. Elliott himself said the waves cannot fail.

Not only is that bold but it is accurate and that after all these decades. So no the waves will not be different in the future.

Amazing.