Eh?

I'm just challenging your view and asking you to explain it. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable thing to do?

The point is that maybe I'll learn something, others will learn something or possibly even you might learn something. That's a good thing, right?

Nobody will benefit at all if you just walk away.

I give up. I wont bother posting anymore...

diver993 wrote:
Thanks for the reply diver.

IMHO yes, it does matter but I'll come back to that. I agree that we can't always know at the time exactly which count is really in play, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't care which labels we're using and where. It's good to have alternative counts, but each alternative should also be a valid count or there's no point in labelling them at all. You might as well just randomly assign any number or letter anywhere with that approach like having an impulse wave labelled as 1, c, 5, a, 3. It just doesn't make any sense.

There are people who see these counts we post and try to learn from them so we have a responsibility to try and at least make them technically work within EWT, even if we point out that the whole (but technically correct) count may be wrong.

OK, back to why it matters for trading. Let's use an example. Imagine we can see a chart which has 3 waves up followed by 3 waves down. We might choose to label the peak of the first three waves as "1" and the low of the second three waves as "2". We then might decide to enter long on a break of the high at "1" expecting, due to the labelling, to have a nice ride up for waves 3, 4 and 5 only to be flummoxed when prices don't go that far before falling back below "1" and "2" because they were, in fact, "A" and "B".

Had we correctly labelled the first three waves up as "A" rather than "1" we might have chosen a totally different strategy such as entering just after the second three waves (where we should have put a "B" instead of a "2") in the expectation not of a wave 3 up but of a wave C up.

Equally, if we label an initial impulse wave up as a "A" instead of a "1" we might not bother entering long on a break of the peak thinking that there's little point in trying to trade a small portion of a C wave, only to then watch prices fly away on the crest of a wave 3.

So, you see, getting the right label for the form and position of the wave can be critically important in determining your strategy. It could still mean we've got the whole count wrong, but at least we'd have a better fighting chance if we recognise the difference between an impulse wave and a corrective one and label them as such.

If your method's working well for you then that's great and, of course, you can label your charts however you like. I'd just like to know your explanations as to why you sometimes have impulse waves with 3 subwaves and odd things like wave As at all time high prices. There are no circumstances I can think of where these things can form any part of any correct count within EWT - a wave A MUST ALWAYS end above the low of the previous impulse wave during a downtrend and below the high of the previous impulse wave during an uptrend.

Take your recent Dow chart for example where you asked if it was possibly the end of wave ((a)). Can you please explain how you come to have a wave ((a)) at the highest point the market has ever been? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who'd like to know the answer to that.

I don't have any problem accepting if I'm wrong or acknowledging you're right, but when I ask these questions you tell me that either I don't know enough (true but who does?) or that you come by these counts by invoking your own set of rules which have little to do with the EWT that everyone else is using or trying to learn. If you've developed improvements to EWT that work really well then that's great and we'd like to you to share them please so we can learn from them, but these amendments (like your RSI theory) still need to allow the original, proven, theory to function unless your discovery has rendered EWT itself void.

Take, for example, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This was put under severe experimental scrutiny at the time and found to be extremely accurate. He then went on to develop his General Theory of Relativity which was a much more comprehensive theory covering far greater depth but the Special Theory was still valid as a subset of the new General Theory.

On the other hand, when Millikan set out to prove the existence of the Ether by measuring the speed of light in perpendicular directions (expecting them to be different due to the effects of the Ether) he found that is was the same in both directions and in doing so, dis-proved the theory of the Ether.

It's the same here. You've either established new rules which improve EWT (in which case let's explore them) or you've established that EWT is fundamentally flawed. I'm just trying to find out which it is and I need your explanations for your counts in order to do that please.

Amo,

My apologies.

With all due respect Diver I find you're labeling quite confusing when trying to learn EWT but I appreciate everybody has their own methods.

Regards
Amo

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7238706/SAGE%20GRP.alt.png

Correct; it is pointless to argue about something, the truth of which can never be known until after the event. For me the above interpretation is what works best at the moment, but may well change with the passage of time. It could become part of anything. The point is, it doesn't matter because nobody is trading such time-frames. I'm rather surprised to hear you say I'm confusing a lot of people as you are the only person responding.
When I referred to being anal I was referring to my own attitude in that I feel trying to put too much detail into labeling every last jitter and jot is just trying to prove yourself right and there is no point in that. The only important thing, from a trading point of view, is to be on the right side of the trend: that way, even if you enter at the wrong time, the trade will come back to you. That is why I look at the wider picture and then trade 'in close'. Looking at the chart above; there are 7 swings from (( b )) to C: from a trading point of view, does it really matter what you label them or does it matter whether the trend line holds at 330?

diver993 wrote:
That rather begs the question: why bother labelling them at all then?

All I'm asking you to do is to explain something that is confusing a lot of people but you seem unable to provide a proper answer. Instead you make insinuations about being "anal" about getting the labelling correct. What's the point in putting up a chart with Elliott Wave labels on it if you're not bothered about getting them right?

Seems rather pointless to me.

Thanks for responding.

Jackozy, ignore the wave 1 and 2 and it makes sense:) I thought it had a chance of being a 1 and 2 but then saw differently and forgot to change the labels.

I really don't care what label you put on a wave, for me it is the structure of the wave that's important. You can call them wotsits and thingamegigs or whatever. It's not really important. I certainly have no wish to get anal about the rights and wrongs of a label

Hi Diver,

On that count, you appear to have had a wave 1 up followed by a wave 2 down - OK so far - but then you've got a 5 wave impulsive move up which ought to be wave 3 or wave 1 of 3 but you've labelled its top as an ((a))? This doesn't make any sense to me. It suggests that the move up from your wave 2 low is a massive corrective move up to a possible ((c)) at the recent 371 high?

How can you have a wave 1 up followed by a 2 down and then another, bigger, correction upwards? Surely the move up from the wave 2 low (which you've initially labelled as impulsive too!) is at least part of a wave 3?

I don't want to re-open old arguments, but I suspect that these counts are confusing a lot of people as they don't conform to EWT (as it was published).

Sorry, keep forgetting to include the link
dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7238706/SAGE%20GRP..png

Anyone looking at this?

Although I've drawn the fibs on here at the recent high I'm not sure this is now changing course just yet?