Skip to content
S&P 5007,676.77up +0.70%Nasdaq26,169.38up +0.82%Dow52,361.58up +0.28%DAX25,377.56down −0.13%GBP/USD1.3314down −0.21%EUR/GBP0.8367down −0.10%Brent111.18up +0.40%Gold4,009.9down −0.71%Bitcoin79,574down −0.54%Prices at 09:51
ChartsView

Question for Jackozy et al

More
13 years 11 months ago #1328 by Jackozy
Replied by Jackozy on topic Question for Jackozy et al
Hi Diver,

To my knowledge there is no EWT rule that wave C must be at least equal in length to wave A.

However, it does appear to be more often the case that wave C meets either the 100% extension of A or the 161.8% extension. For example, during a 61.8% retrace I quite often see a bounce off the 38.2% Fib up to the 23.6% Fib before the move down to the 61.8% one. This would make C = A in length.

If you're still looking at the move up from March 2009 lows as corrective then I think it counts far better as a double three. I'll post a count on that later...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 11 months ago #1316 by diver993
screencast.com/t/K0wccv2Zrxeb

Is this a reasonable labeling under Elliotts? Is there any rule about the length of wave C as opposed to wave A? On the basis a wave 3 can never be the shortest wave, does a similar rule apply to wave C??

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: remo
Powered by Kunena Forum
Use the arrow keys to move and Enter to openSearch every page

Share tips