Triangles

[Steely Dan]

Yes, I know triangles don't actually exist under NewR, however by force of habit I still draw converging lines when I 'see' one. Triangles are supposed to be the penultimate wave in a sequence at any given degree, this appears to work quite often and I was thinking of a way NewR can give insight into what comes after a triangle because depending on whether the 'b' wave of a triangle makes new territory then in effect an RTB is probably contained within the triangle so the ensuing 5th wave should be a 5th wave at one larger degree too.

Tom am I correct in the inferences I'm drawing here?

[TS Hennessy]

(02-17-2010 07:21 AM)Steely Dan Wrote:  Yes, I know triangles don't actually exist under NewR, however by force of habit I still draw converging lines when I 'see' one. Triangles are supposed to be the penultimate wave in a sequence at any given degree, this appears to work quite often and I was thinking of a way NewR can give insight into what comes after a triangle because depending on whether the 'b' wave of a triangle makes new territory then in effect an RTB is probably contained within the triangle so the ensuing 5th wave should be a 5th wave at one larger degree too.

Tom am I correct in the inferences I'm drawing here?

You could in certain cases.

Triangles may also appear where the A of (b) in an RTB 4 holds shallow
compared to the C of (b) but it may get drawn out if the A of (b) is
deep. Then it may not look so much like a normal triangle but it would
still be one.

Many other scenarios and I cannot list them all.

I would still suggest that position of waves is most accurately found
by counting alone. Then I would go right along and negate my advice
by drawing a line along wave start to wave 2 end to see where RTB 4-C
protrudes.



The counting of the B waves is always fun and I have discovered a
technical analysis technique which tells me how many bars the A of (b)
will possibly contain min and max.

That is cheating though. It is not ready and 100% validated yet so I can
only tease you by telling you that.

[kaori]

Example Case[url entered] REMOVED BY ADMIN NO LINKS!

I had studied this pattern for pretty end in the live market in the long run period, years in fact and there is in fact one behaviour I do wonder now far, far much later when I just thought I knew every single details it can have.

It is pretty simple issue in fact ie. waves AB, BC, CD and DE all retrace between each other just like described in in frost&precther books meaning most often those retracement area between .50 - .786 (not mentioning all the most nimble things like e wave 0.25 ret now) - BUT, here´s the thing.

Note that pattern is not necessary perfectly vertically located in the market and when it is not, those actual retracement rules are set between these wave sizes per each other i.e AB, BC, CD and DE.

The result is not the same if you take vertical retracements for them using any standard fibonacci retracement tools. Why ?

Because patterns it is not vertically located in the example case.

(It is the only reason why my automatic scanner didnt recognice it).

Open the link above to see the such a case.
Any comments ?

[TS Hennessy]

(07-02-2010 06:09 PM)kaori Wrote:  Example Case[url entered] REMOVED BY ADMIN NO LINKS!

I had studied this pattern for pretty end in the live market in the long run period, years in fact and there is in fact one behaviour I do wonder now far, far much later when I just thought I knew every single details it can have.

It is pretty simple issue in fact ie. waves AB, BC, CD and DE all retrace between each other just like described in in frost&precther books meaning most often those retracement area between .50 - .786 (not mentioning all the most nimble things like e wave 0.25 ret now) - BUT, here´s the thing.

Note that pattern is not necessary perfectly vertically located in the market and when it is not, those actual retracement rules are set between these wave sizes per each other i.e AB, BC, CD and DE.

The result is not the same if you take vertical retracements for them using any standard fibonacci retracement tools. Why ?

Because patterns it is not vertically located in the example case.

(It is the only reason why my automatic scanner didnt recognice it).

Open the link above to see the such a case.
Any comments ?

No such thing as an 'E' wave, my friend. ( and no links please. Thank you. )



General PITA

[kaori]

What do you mean with not such thing as "E" ?

All cont. triangles have E wave.

Ok, no links but then there is not example case either.

[finster869]

(07-04-2010 12:00 PM)kaori Wrote:  What do you mean with not such thing as "E" ?

All cont. triangles have E wave.

Ok, no links but then there is not example case either.

With the new elliott wave rule, there are no longer triangles or any letters other than a b and c.

[TS Hennessy]

(07-04-2010 12:00 PM)kaori Wrote:  Ok, no links but then there is not example case either.

kaori,

You may certainly post your chart here. Just use the Insert Image
button which looks like a picture of a mountain top with sun.

OR

Use the Attachments method - see below for Browse / Add Attachment
buttons.

[kaori]

No triangles - that´s gracy idea, most W2 and W4´s are contracting triangle

What happened to them, it is only pattern I trade

Perhaps this image is not unlegal for this new EW theory

[3kings]

There is nothing illegal about the wave labels to post them here as you wish I think.

And nothing wrong with watching for triangles either.

We don't care if your letters are not valid to the new rule its not like we have not ever seen the regular rule stuff.

Thanks for putting in the picture this time.

[ruby]

That's like saying it's o.k. to wear clothes on a nude beach.
Most of us just walk around nude to get an even tan - but it's a private beach, and the owner is a nudist.