- Posts: 898
- Thank you received: 0
Question for Jackozy et al
13 years 3 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...
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.
13 years 3 months ago #1316
by diver993
Question for Jackozy et al was created 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??
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
Time to create page: 0.094 seconds
