wave b in a 1-a-b-c(2)

[TS Hennessy]

Thank you!

You guys are finally opening this up.

I had been concerned that all the posts ended with my answer and
do not want to limit discussion.

I really liked all of this thread and the thoughtful responses.

Also you have arrived at the correct interpretation of the NEWR.

Yes it does only deal with 4ths of 5 and C.

No sub-wave of the 4th of Wave 2 will ever exceed wave 3.

Of course we want to make sure we never confuse the subwaves and
the current degree being discussed and it seems that this has been
carefully followed in the discussion.

Yes the last move down into March '09 lows in most markets is a 3-wave
and of course it is because the market is following the rules.



Since we are at that point in a Cycle wave [C] then the RTB attribute of
the 4th sub-wave comes through and the low in March is set, not by
the 3rd sub-wave, but the B of its 4th sub-wave.

The expanding flat reference is usually a direct result in the staunch
refusal to recognize, despite clear evidence, that the 4th wave may
indeed overlap wave 1 terminal.

Looking at a 1st wave, when the 1st, 2nd and 3rd sub-waves are
greatly retraced, most will assume that it must be the current degree's
2nd wave. The RTB attribute of that 1st wave's 5th subwave will not
be recognized and so it may appear casually as a three.

This error allows the existence of the false 'rule' that 4th cannot overlap
1's terminal AND helps to hide the recognition of the NEWR all at the
same time.

Great thread!

[ruby]

No sub-wave of the 4th of Wave 2 will ever exceed wave 3

... what is the poet trying to tell us ?????

Actually, Elliott never said that 4 cannot reach into the territory of 1. He said, it can't END there (according to Prechter)

[Steely Dan]

"Yes the last move down into March '09 lows in most markets is a 3-wave
and of course it is because the market is following the rules."

I remember posting on other forums to watch out for the terminal 5th wave of a motive sequence resembling a 3 long before I chanced upon NewR.

And the resulting RTB 4th wave of course retraces a large proportion of the preceding waves 1 to 3 no doubt overlapping wave 1 in many cases; no wonder no two Elliott wave analysts seem to have arrived at the same count. The most fiendish aspect of all this is that subsequent to the RTB wave comes wave C of 4 which must be a 5 wave structure - with the old rules I don't see how you could other than see such a 5 wave structure as part of a new motive sequence, in other words a new bull market, or at least part of a more protracted zig-zag correction. The only thing which worries me about this is that the consensus of the wave community still seem to be counting a complexed 3 wave sequence from the March lows, I would like to have seen more subscribing to the 5 wave bandwagon if the rally is indeed over - Perhaps this is down to some inherent bearish bias in Elliotticians, or perhaps there is still afterall some unfinished business to the upside as occurred with the Swiss index.

I will try to keep my old ways of thinking out of this, but I'll just remark that the Euro is very oversold and sterling needs to rally some against the $ according to Tom's recently published count.

[ruby]

Yes, looking at hedgefund activity vs. commercial traders in the futures on finviz, you see some unusual imbalance in some of the currencies. Maybe Britain is about to announce that it will leave the EU - while everyone's eyes are focused on Greece.

Hm... where has this RTB 4th entered the territory of 1?

All I know is that most wavers are now speculating that P3 (of Cycle c of Supercycle (IV) I suppose) has started and that the move up from March 09 was a triple zigzag P2. The more I think about it, the more confused I get :-) Well, the direction is DOWN, no matter who's right, Tom's approach just paints a brighter picture of the future, which I like.

[finster869]

So, what was the final answer to the original question? In a 1-a-b-c(2), can "b" be higher than the end of "1", with "c" then falling back below wave 1?

[ruby]

Since Tom says we arrived at the right solution - the new rule doesn't look at 2nd waves - I assume that there are no rules (yet) allowing or forbidding 2nds to retrend.

[TS Hennessy]

Retrending "b" waves only occur in 4ths of waves 5 and C.

Wave "b" of 2nd waves may not ever retrend.

------------------

My talking about a wave 1 was theoretical and refering only to
how a supposed retrending b of wave 2 might be viewed as such
where the ivth had ended inside the wave i territory which supposedly
cannot happen.

It does happen but if you then think that it must be a ii rather than a iv
then in dealing with your ACTUAL vth and the ACTUAL 2nd to follow
then you have something 'extra' to deal with, which gets called
something else which the waves cannot actually do.

[finster869]

Tom- Do you have a count for the S&P or Dow from Jan 19th? If we can't have a retrending "b" in a 2nd wave, then I am at a complete loss on how to count from Jan 19th on.