What's next?

[Raklian]

In your ebook, you mentioned "full cycle" as a motive wave and corrective wave. I'm aware that within the motive wave we have those 1-2-3-4-5 waves which then become A-B-C afterwards. After C, the trend goes on with another set of 1-2-3-4-5 waves and so on. Now, being the newbie that I am in counting Elliot Waves, I have to ask what if the trend does not continue on this degree. What comes next after A-B-C ends? This time, the trend does not continue but instead it has reversed for real. How to we adapt in counting this particular situation? So far my only answer to this question is to switch over to the next lower degree and count the same way except this time it is on an opposite trend. That brings up another question: do I throw the degree labels from the original count into the trash?

[TS Hennessy]

(01-24-2010 07:53 PM)Raklian Wrote:  In your ebook, you mentioned "full cycle" as a motive wave and corrective wave. I'm aware that within the motive wave we have those 1-2-3-4-5 waves which then become A-B-C afterwards. After C, the trend goes on with another set of 1-2-3-4-5 waves and so on. Now, being the newbie that I am in counting Elliot Waves, I have to ask what if the trend does not continue on this degree. What comes next after A-B-C ends? This time, the trend does not continue but instead it has reversed for real. How to we adapt in counting this particular situation? So far my only answer to this question is to switch over to the next lower degree and count the same way except this time it is on an opposite trend. That brings up another question: do I throw the degree labels from the original count into the trash?

Let's say you are in the basement of a building. The elevator has B for
basement and 1 through 100 floors marked on it. If you are truly in the
basement you can only first move to the first floor. The elevator
CANNOT take you down.

That is how Elliott Wave rules work. <--- Note the period at the end of
that sentence.

Now we will look at a different scenario...

What if instead you were having a prank played on you by the guy who
manages the building. He has caused you to become disoriented. You
think you are on the 40th floor but he has switched the lights on the
elevator and you are really on the 20th floor. All signs have been
switched around on the floors to how the building manager wants them
to appear for his prank.

Additionally he has taken control of the buttons so that the elevator
only goes the direction he wants it to go. This is a very smooth
elevator. You cannot tell from motion whether you are going up or down.

You wanted to go to the 50th floor to attend an important meeting. You
press the '50' button. The elevator instead takes you down to the 10th
floor but you have heard 10 very nice chimes and seen the lights flash
10 times and you do not see the problem.

You get out and all seems normal - floor is labeled 50 - must be 50.

You wander through the hallway looking bewildered and you miss your
meeting and get "Corrective Action" by the boss who is angry.

Welcome to the mis-application of Elliott Wave rules.

ONLY when the progression is actually complete to a terminal which is
a 5 of 5 of 5...of some wave... will the wave move to the next wave in
the progression.

It will ONLY move to the wave which it is supposed to. It CANNOT do
otherwise.

We can end up seeing the wrong result ONLY when we have either
begun from an assumption of the incorrect starting point or we have
somewhere along the way AFTER a correct starting point somehow
gotten disoriented.

This is GREAT news. This is structure. It can be learned, and now in the
correct manner.

So the degrees progression will be a function of completion of waves in
a fractal build. The next degree will be the one that is next up to bat
and there are no substitutions.


To correct for an erroneous count situation you need to find the true
count for 1 degree above the current degree, then find the count for
the current degree making sure enough detail is present from the degree
smaller than the current degree unless it is unavailable.

[Raklian]

I've taken the liberty to examine how you labelled the waves in your charts you posted in this forum and of course in the ebook. I decided to blot out your labels and try to label the same charts myself. Afterwards, I found that I counted the waves differently but still managed to adhere to the new rules although I was only able to count one degree less in total (I'm sure it doesn't necessarily make it less reliable). Is this possible without compromising the intergrity of the definitive count? It seems to me that this new rule allows us to use our subjectivity to an extent but still retain the ability to do a definitive count.

[TS Hennessy]

(01-25-2010 01:25 AM)Raklian Wrote:  I've taken the liberty to examine how you labelled the waves in your charts you posted in this forum and of course in the ebook. I decided to blot out your labels and try to label the same charts myself. Afterwards, I found that I counted the waves differently but still managed to adhere to the new rules although I was only able to count one degree less in total (I'm sure it doesn't necessarily make it less reliable). Is this possible without compromising the intergrity of the definitive count? It seems to me that this new rule allows us to use our subjectivity to an extent but still retain the ability to do a definitive count.

That is a fantastic idea! Only the waves can teach us about waves.

It would not be possible to have two counts that are equally valid for
the same wave.

That would mean there is absolutely nothing inherently sound in Elliott
Wave in the first place.


Sorry but only errors could account for this. My wave labeling and your
wave labeling have nothing to do with Elliott Wave formation.

At various times I'll have errors and you'll have errors. The waves
themselves do not know how to make a mistake since they do not
need to label themselves.

If you are not convinced of this at any various points in time (I'm building
in the fight the mind will give you) then it is understandable.

I am Perma-Conviction and would just request someone to examine past
waves (several degrees deep) where there is no question (using the
rules) as to how they could explain how this could occur.

The only reason for non-belief is lack of information. If one were to just
examine the full and complete mechanism by which rain falls in their back
yard they will have no doubt of intelligent design.

Therefore I have a solid foundation which does not allow for subjectivity.

These waves do not build differently today than they have for forever.
That means we must understand the mechanism and if we can't then
we should at least respect their structural integrity. Otherwise there is
probably little point in giving consideration to the practice.

Consequently I would advise someone to first agree with the past
evidence of remarkable swing pivot calls with specificity (even with
standard rules). Then secondly to discount mistakes (now with even
greater understanding and respect given the limitations of the standard
rules). Then finally to be determined to learn and then profit from the
Undisputed Champion of the World of TA, Elliott Wave.

[wolexbrain]

(01-24-2010 09:38 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote:  To correct for an erroneous count situation you need to find the true
count for 1 degree above the current degree, then find the count for
the current degree making sure enough detail is present from the degree
smaller than the current degree unless it is unavailable.

pls look @ the 1hr/5min of gbp/usd and pls tell me which degree you will start the label from and why? may be i will get this stuff through that.
I am still finding it difficult to know the degree to start the count from and why.

Thanks.

[TS Hennessy]

(02-23-2010 03:30 AM)wolexbrain Wrote:  pls look @ the 1hr/5min of gbp/usd and pls tell me which degree you will start the label from and why? may be i will get this stuff through that.
I am still finding it difficult to know the degree to start the count from and why.

Thanks.

Sorry but this thing you must understand first, the degrees thing is like
a sentence. It has a context. The context must have an origin like the
paragraph.

For someone to ask what degree to start without providing the starting
point is an impossible question.

Also I do not always have a running count handy for forex pairs down to
the 5 min.

For basic understanding of degrees one should locate the Elliott Wave
education sites because it is redundant to put that same information
up here.

In addition the degree is not as important as the count itself. This is
where it may be best to focus.