Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Skookum · 03-08-2012, 10:29 AM

(03-08-2012 09:17 AM)finster869 Wrote:
(03-08-2012 02:32 AM)Skookum Wrote: I am new to Elliott wave theory, but am enough of an applied mathematician to be familiar with the Fibonacci sequence and ratios and how prevalent they are in nature.

It appears most EW practitioners focus on short timeframe charts. I assume that is because trades can be placed with less risk on such charts. However, as a position trader, I am interested in the big picture. Based on a monthly chart of $SPX, are we in a bull or bear market right now? I have been assuming we have been in a bear market since fall 2007. An inflation-adjusted version of $SPX shows this clearly, with the bear market beginning in spring 2000. But, a look at the monthly $SPX tells me it is in the 5th wave of an uptrend that began spring 2009 that was within about 4% of its peak (or, the peak could be the high logged on Feb 29). Would that not mean we are at or near the end of a bull market impulse with a correction impending?

My bottom line question: where is the $SPX big picture-wise? Can anyone provide a consensus count on a monthly chart?

Thanks.

Skookum

If we can't prove that EW or NEWR works on short term charts (or use it with any sort of reliability), what makes you think it will work on a long term chart? The entire theory is based upon fractals building on top of smaller fractals. It just takes longer on a long term chart than a short term chart to see that the count was wrong.

In any event, in traditionall EW forums there is no consensus. Some have March 2009 as a large degree wave 4 bottom with us now starting a 3rd wave up (1-2, 1-2). Others think we are in a primary wave 2 that won't be proven wrong until the Oct 2007 high gets taken out.

finster,

There seems to be a lot of griping about volatility and price gaps. There are no gaps on the monthly chart.

Skookum

amala · 03-08-2012, 10:45 AM

Tom had this comment when I asked about a particular count on a small timeframe: It is not allowing me to post a link to the post, but you paste this past the /forums/ thread-72-post-2038.html#pid2038
in the URL to see it

Quote:I know we will need to be several degrees away from a count and in
a completed pattern before any possibility of arguing one way or
another way about any given area may be practically ruled out. Even
then some will still argue and even then the truth may not come forth.

So I think the same applies on the big timeframes. The rules are loose enough that you cannot look at a monthly chart and say with certainty where the count is. There have been some opinions but they were proved wrong.

Perry · 03-09-2012, 12:25 AM

Well, for what it’s worth, here is what the big picture count currently looks like to me. As finster said, I don’t think there is a consensus; and I’m not claiming this count is right. I’ll also note that I have a couple of alternative counts of the move up from March 09, which appear possible to me.

The degree symbols are Elwave’s

amala · 03-15-2012, 11:17 AM

A bold EW (not NEWR) prediction for the S&P is available on wavetimes .com

3kings · 03-16-2012, 12:41 AM

(03-15-2012 11:17 AM)amala Wrote: A bold EW (not NEWR) prediction for the S&P is available on wavetimes .com

Good luck with that kind of counting nonsense. Both of those charts made me laugh so hard. It's the same kind of nonsense you see all over the place.

3kings

amala · 03-16-2012, 06:55 AM

(03-16-2012 12:41 AM)3kings Wrote:
(03-15-2012 11:17 AM)amala Wrote: A bold EW (not NEWR) prediction for the S&P is available on wavetimes .com

Good luck with that kind of counting nonsense. Both of those charts made me laugh so hard. It's the same kind of nonsense you see all over the place.

3kings

As opposed to the accuracy displayed by which counts?

3kings · 03-22-2012, 01:21 PM

(03-16-2012 06:55 AM)amala Wrote:
(03-16-2012 12:41 AM)3kings Wrote:
(03-15-2012 11:17 AM)amala Wrote: A bold EW (not NEWR) prediction for the S&P is available on wavetimes .com

Good luck with that kind of counting nonsense. Both of those charts made me laugh so hard. It's the same kind of nonsense you see all over the place.

3kings

As opposed to the accuracy displayed by which counts?

amala, I suppose you are talking about Tom's counts that turned out wrong on more than one occasion. That is really different for ME than any type of counting that doesn't follow the rules very closely at all and that is how I view many sources on the web.

If you think that RN Elliott was never wrong then I think that you are probably wrong in that line of thinking. If you think this then it might explain how it is that you came to suggest that Tom was misleading people here. How utterly crazy I thought that comment was when I read it and I guess you were disillusioned that he was not a god afterall. Tom's tagline on his book seems to have given so many a hard time and it is a shame because the way people have handled it detracts from the contribution he has made.

It seems that nobody can read the word definitive without then adding their own personal spin or interpretation to the word. What I witnessed on the threads of the forum was extremely definitive counting and not just by Tom. As far as this trader is concerned he has benefitted traders and EW enthusiasts from the time he wrote NEWR onward.

Some on here cry for help and then slap Tom in the face if his count isn't perfect (even though most of the time it was). Well I guess you'll have to hear it from me since Tom didn't chew yer butt out like I wish he did but you insult the members by that childishness IMO and ruined the continuity of what goes on here. Grow up into the real world of trading. Nobody said the work of counting is easy or without problems. If you want perfectly accurate counts then look for someone who wrote a book with a tagline that says "achieve Perfect Friggin Counts"! I can't really talk about just you without saying the same to Finster. Finster who really cares if you believe in EW? This is an EW forum! Sorry but amala's not too subtle poke and jab got me started. I hope this is not taken to be personal because it is professional and you both contributed before you drove yourselves off the cliff of despair.

(10-28-2011 11:33 AM)TS Hennessy Wrote: They really are part of the details needed to lead you, combined with
the definitive count of a specific degree. If you have all the data, and
that means there is not detail hidden in ticks or off-session, you
should have everything you need to tackle the only other challenge
and that is speed changes.

This is where the thinking man overcomes the computer. That fuzzy
logic that allows the span to flow within a span. Yes that is a
challenge, no question. Not only is there that issue but the data IS
frequently missing little important pieces that can have a big effect.

Nonetheless we are situationally aware footsoldiers.

This area does not have any apparent missing details.

The span we see in the beginning of the leg which will build our .a of
the rtb-.4 is only lasting a few minutes per internal. Even taking the
outer limits of the time spans we cannot label this using Mil degree ("1).

The first part of the .a wave will definitely build a "1 (Mil degree internal)
but Mil calls for Hours to Half Days. That is our clue to at least put
something together which makes sense of the build at the timespan
which matches the action.

Look at a 4 hour chart. We have 1 bar in our build and you can add a
little time from the drop off the highs. The market is stretched with
much room to correct which is what we are building in all A waves.

It therefore makes sense that the time is matched better to the Sub-Mil
degree with this morning's northerly drift being an internal "iv of "1
of the ultimate .a wave. This may be the market's way of creating
the pause the market needs.

The larger timeframe once again puts this into perspective. The soldier
is aware of not only the minute details but also the operational view.

superb

amala ref that post:

(10-28-2011 12:08 PM)amala Wrote: Tom

Thank you for that, makes sense as you are saying with the situational awareness. In a lot of techniques that is what makes the pros. One can know the techniques but that is really how to apply them by keeping track of the nesting.

just my two cents

3kings (as opposed to 5 aces, sorry amala, I'm not perfect either)

amala · 03-22-2012, 01:31 PM

Well I am glad you think it is useful. From my perspective I don't see giving any benefits over other types of EW. It is foolish to expect a holy grail, but I expected something that would give some way to be more objective but I don't see it. It is probably foolish thinking on my part because fully objective would be too deterministic. I did expect more of Tom's counts to be accurate, but I see longer term counts are just as speculative as any other methods. If it is disturbing you or other members I will stop posting. I don't want to discourage anyone, but if you thought some other EW post on the internet was laughable, i don't see how other counts are any better. I had some interest before but I don't anymore, the last counts I did were around November.
There are a lot of trading systems out there and if this works for you, go for it, i won't bother posting and you can keep this forum for the believers.

3kings · 03-22-2012, 01:38 PM

(03-22-2012 01:31 PM)amala Wrote: Well I am glad you think it is useful. From my perspective I don't see giving any benefits over other types of EW. It is foolish to expect a holy grail, but I expected something that would give some way to be more objective but I don't see it. It is probably foolish thinking on my part because fully objective would be too deterministic. I did expect more of Tom's counts to be accurate, but I see longer term counts are just as speculative as any other methods. If it is disturbing you or other members I will stop posting. I don't want to discourage anyone, but if you thought some other EW post on the internet was laughable, i don't see how other counts are any better. I had some interest before but I don't anymore, the last counts I did were around November.
There are a lot of trading systems out there and if this works for you, go for it, i won't bother posting and you can keep this forum for the believers.

Fine amala, throw the baby out with the bathwater. I saw ton's of accurate counts so far and when Tom was posting before your insult to him he was showing a count that was looking Long, definitively, and it was proven to have a flaw that proved out on a very tiny degree. That is how the pros do it. Go cry if you want but I see a huge difference in NEWR.

3kings