EWP and NEWR rules

[Perry]

I’ll through in my two cents:

I fully appreciate Tom’s point that trying to translate ‘old’ patterns to NEWR counts is very likely to be counter productive.

At the same time having some current, real-world, examples of good counts like the Dow or S&P has been extremely helpful to me in getting started.

And, thanks for the great tips. They’ve been said before, but the timing was right for me this time:

“The simple elegance does in fact do all the translating. Begin with a simple 5 wave 3 wave and where you get to a 4th of a 5th or C, apply the NEWR.”

“…all 4th waves are unique messes”

Again thanks,

Perry

[TS Hennessy]

(07-04-2010 02:01 PM)ruby Wrote:  it would be interesting to see, if the new rule could explain why certain patterns are such high probability trades. Like ending diagonals, which tend to be completely retraced.

The wave C of B of an RTB 4th is where the tread bars of the trend's
tires begin to show through. This can make traders more jumpy and
profit taking is prevalent as this sub-wave rolls over into it's own C of
RTB 4. The market sees this as weakness in the trend and adds more
power to the counter-trend commitment.

That applies only if in fact it does not develop with strength. It is market
dependant.

In addition:

This is a smaller degree than the RTB 4th itself thereby increasing the
likelihood of full retracement in the C of the RTB 4th.

[ruby]

That sounds good. There's nothing wrong with adding some of the old insights to the new system. You just don't give the patterns names anymore, but it's still justified to forecast the behavior of c by looking at the vigor in b.

[ruby]

As to predicting the length of c of an rtb: There is a limit other than the start of wave 1. If 3 is shorter than 1, c cannot be longer than 3, since 5 will have to be equal or shorter than 3.

[ruby]

Another thought - now that I'm finally starting to really understand the new principle: In your eBook you mentioned that Elliott himself often added little extra waves to his 5ths. In other words, he considered the retrending b plus the NEW 5 the 5th wave. He still insisted that wave 3 cannot be the shortest. So in cases where 3 is longer than 1, we have nothing to worry about applying the new rule. But there are cases where 3 is shorter than 1. If the retrending b is longer than 3, with the following c shorter than 3 and the NEW 5th also shorter than 3, we would not consider it a rule violation. But Elliott would have. To him, the 5th wave would have been too long. Could it be that in cases with wave 3 shorter than 1, there is also a limit to the retrending b plus wave 5? That together they cannot be longer than wave 3?

[TS Hennessy]

(07-08-2010 01:45 PM)ruby Wrote:  Another thought - now that I'm finally starting to really understand the new principle: In your eBook you mentioned that Elliott himself often added little extra waves to his 5ths. In other words, he considered the retrending b plus the NEW 5 the 5th wave. He still insisted that wave 3 cannot be the shortest. So in cases where 3 is longer than 1, we have nothing to worry about applying the new rule. But there are cases where 3 is shorter than 1. If the retrending b is longer than 3, with the following c shorter than 3 and the NEW 5th also shorter than 3, we would not consider it a rule violation. But Elliott would have. To him, the 5th wave would have been too long. Could it be that in cases with wave 3 shorter than 1, there is also a limit to the retrending b plus wave 5? That together they cannot be longer than wave 3?

First, the 3 is NOT ever the shortest (of the motive waves).

This is still an interesting thought.

Personally I see this as an impulse only thing. You could not include the
correction just because it moves with the trend.

B waves always do that anyway.

Now someone else might just want to figure if it must fit into Mr. Elliott's
rule as though he were aware of the RTB 4th. Sure could get confusing, huh?

I suppose only a real example would be meaty enough to chew over.

I would only wish to even consider any example situation once all the
waves of the next higher degree were completed and there were no
question as to the count under NEWR.

Otherwise some interpretation may cloud the issue.

I'm like that.

[finster869]

(07-08-2010 01:45 PM)ruby Wrote:  Another thought - now that I'm finally starting to really understand the new principle: In your eBook you mentioned that Elliott himself often added little extra waves to his 5ths. In other words, he considered the retrending b plus the NEW 5 the 5th wave. He still insisted that wave 3 cannot be the shortest. So in cases where 3 is longer than 1, we have nothing to worry about applying the new rule. But there are cases where 3 is shorter than 1. If the retrending b is longer than 3, with the following c shorter than 3 and the NEW 5th also shorter than 3, we would not consider it a rule violation. But Elliott would have. To him, the 5th wave would have been too long. Could it be that in cases with wave 3 shorter than 1, there is also a limit to the retrending b plus wave 5? That together they cannot be longer than wave 3?

Very interesting, Ruby. I was sort of struggling with this thought as well when applying fibonacci ratios to trying to predict the end of 5th or c waves. Haven't figured out exactly whether the retrending B and the c wave that is shorter than A makes a big difference or not.