Latest S & P 500 Count

[TS Hennessy]

You're welcome. That was my hope as well.

[theoryman]

Thanks for that Tom.

That is a count I tried to justify but IMHO there wasn't the evidence there to support it.

Thinking forwards and using the RT"b as a fixed point I could not locate the 4"a that precedes it. I can see a solid move but not the required five.

Thinking backwards from the end of the whole pattern and using the RT*b as a fixed point, I could not locate the 4*a that preceded it. Same problem as above.

Even allowing for those I was very unhappy with the structure of the RT*B. Is this even a three? In particular a five three five?

I am OK with one area of uncertainty in a count, two makes me uneasy but I can handle it. However when it comes to three, then I am concerned that a combination of hindsight and confirmation bias is being used to force a count.

cheers theory

[TS Hennessy]

(07-20-2010 02:28 AM)theoryman Wrote:  Thanks for that Tom.

That is a count I tried to justify but IMHO there wasn't the evidence there to support it.

Thinking forwards and using the RT"b as a fixed point I could not locate the 4"a that precedes it. I can see a solid move but not the required five.

Thinking backwards from the end of the whole pattern and using the RT*b as a fixed point, I could not locate the 4*a that preceded it. Same problem as above.

Even allowing for those I was very unhappy with the structure of the RT*B. Is this even a three? In particular a five three five?

I am OK with one area of uncertainty in a count, two makes me uneasy but I can handle it. However when it comes to three, then I am concerned that a combination of hindsight and confirmation bias is being used to force a count.

cheers theory

Sorry, TM, those concerns you describe are unclear to me.

But you are welcome in any case!

[theoryman]

(07-20-2010 08:16 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote:  

(07-20-2010 02:28 AM)theoryman Wrote:  Thanks for that Tom.

That is a count I tried to justify but IMHO there wasn't the evidence there to support it.

Thinking forwards and using the RT"b as a fixed point I could not locate the 4"a that precedes it. I can see a solid move but not the required five.

Thinking backwards from the end of the whole pattern and using the RT*b as a fixed point, I could not locate the 4*a that preceded it. Same problem as above.

Even allowing for those I was very unhappy with the structure of the RT*B. Is this even a three? In particular a five three five?

I am OK with one area of uncertainty in a count, two makes me uneasy but I can handle it. However when it comes to three, then I am concerned that a combination of hindsight and confirmation bias is being used to force a count.

cheers theory

Sorry, TM, those concerns you describe are unclear to me.

But you are welcome in any case!

   

I am wondering if you are now including "see the A" as well as "see the C", in other words the context helps the labelling of difficult bits.

My point is that each individual part of the count must stand on its own merits. Those parts can then be put together to form the bigger picture.

Since EW waves are fractal in nature, it is a double edge sword. Start big and split down or start small and build up - both are valid. If the process is only uni-directional and context is required to clear up unclear small chunks then alarm bells should start to ring.

IMHO there is absolutely no visible evidence on that chart to support that either of those "4As" were non-truncating fives (as required by NEWR).

And as for the "RTB" I have picked out on that chart, it could be anything.

IF you can provide a tick level chart to confirm it is a three and the final third is a "C wave" then it would be great example to put in the ebook - comparing the lack of information at 1 min to the beautiful hidden detail at the tick level.

I am not saying you won't be able to produce evidence at the tick level, just that at the time I couldn't find any and I am yet to see any from another source.

Assuming that they have to be as labelled, based purely on their location within a completed pattern; runs counter to the main thrust of your ebook - each wave has a role to fulfil, each wave has internal properties, don't cut corners.

My concern is that on one hand you are stressing rigour and on the other, the need for flexibility. There are many areas of life where that would be an ideal combnation but not IMO in determining definitive counts. [If I wanted highly subjective alternatives etc... I could have stayed with EWT.]

Additional bit added as an edit.

I am giving equal importance to both the function and the form of the waves, should I be placing less emphasis on the form?

cheers theory

[TS Hennessy]

I do not rely upon seeing the C as any kind of rule but more of a rule-of-thumb.
If it helps then use it. If an actual count sometime happens to
feature a C that does not hang out in plain sight that would not be at
all at odds with the book.

The count I show is a good count of that wave as far as I can tell.

This is a visual process.

What else is there to talk about in that spot? I do not see any problems.

Sorry, but maybe you see something I don't. Whenever someone wants
to interpret a wave count differently they are welcome to do it any way
they want.

I simply noticed that you objected to a C wave as being a five and for
educational purposes ( didn't think it necessary but it may help someone )
wished to point out that it should be a five.

Then in examining the area you were questioning I found that the
structure does seem to be exactly what finster showed it to be.

Are you stating that those are not as they are labeled?

Just for the record I do not ever need to prove anything nor do I intend
to engage in that practice. If you find somewhere that has ever actually
proven EWT in the first place I would like to belly up to that bar.

Form or function are language terms and I would not know if they would
either one necessarily apply one over the other. It seems in my
interpretation of the terms that they could both be used as
possible methods of describing the interplay of highs and lows.

[theoryman]

Tom,

In my initial and second post to finster, I made it very clear indeed that I had no problem with that part of the count being a simple five. I just couldn't find the RTB within it that would make it a C - in otherwords, it could only be a 1st, 3rd or A of something

It seems you have picked up on my third post, which was only meant to express the frustration that I could only see "this ******* five", the five in question referring back to the simple one with no RTB.

I was being very honest about not being able to see the required structure in the whole section - I could have been missing something that was blindingly obvious.I wanted to be shown a straightforward count that I should have picked up in realtime.

For the record, I am not saying that finster's count is wrong, just that there are those three areas, which visually perform the correct function for the count but do not have the visible evidence to confirm that they are what they look like.

In realtime it didn't register as a viable count, three strikes and it was out. After the event, because I know what happened next, I have become more willing to accept that it might be correct.

If someone could provide tick level confirmation of one of those areas then I would be much happier and it would be a strong candidiate. If it could be done for two of them then it would be churlish not to accept that it is the best count available by miles. And if it can be done for all three then wow......

I had always assumed that it would probably be only towards the end of a count that a move to watching tick level would be required, now it seems that even near the start it has to be done; just in case at some stage the detail isn't there on the 5min or 1 min.

cheers theory

[TS Hennessy]

I certainly understand the work and that everything may not
always be the way we want it in the charting.

Consider how Elliott did this even before hourly data let alone
computers were available.

Mind boggling!

[finster869]

Tom or anyone else who wants to chime in. Assuming 1065 was a c of an rtb4th, would you agree that a downward move is expected based upon this chart, or would you count something differently?

   

[Steely Dan]

Finster, I take it your chart does not include the very last data from Friday as we ended on 1104.5 according to my data. This would of course invalidate your pink .iv, perhaps it was an 'a' wave and the 'c' wave low was actually at 1097 where you marked black i. If so as we know this process can keep rolling on. I have candidate C of 4 lows starting at 1054, then 1065 where your chart starts, 1087 (check!) and now 1097. Whats the bet the next one doesn't form for some considerable distance?!

No criticism implied here, I'm working myself on determining whether waiting for the breach of two potential C4 extremes is a trading approach to use as it may filter out a lot of false signals, granted this may lead to a later entry, but it may pay dividends.

[mathematico]

Based on some other data, It looks to me we are setting up to rally. I am in cash and my feeling is that it would be too late for me to move $$ around to enter for the immediate leg up.Expecting a 10% move.
My only availabel trade if currency, if the Euro breaks above 1.31 , I would have to convert my dollars to euros.

Good luck