That looks like a possible thrust up from a triangle.
Once again the market closed on a 1 up, 2 down, positioned for another 3rd wave gap up Monday morning.
For those not familiar with Elliott's complex corrections, below is a page from Nature's Law.
I think we are still in the melt up.
Tracing another flat or equivalent.
(vi) and (vii) is an improper count. I think (ii) is on the 13th and there is an extended (iii). That would change the existing (v) into a (iii) and the existing (vi) into a (iv) thus fixing the count and setting up perfectly for one last little day or day and a half rally before dropping of a clif again.
ReplyDeletePosted the page from Nature's Law for your benefit. Prechter butchered Elliott's complex correction in EWP.
ReplyDeleteThank you. However, in this situation wouldn't EWP's idea show a much easier interpretation without having to worry about if you’re ending on a 5 or a 7? I guess it depends on experience with corrections, which I am still learning.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to argue because I really like your site, I'm just trying to understand better.
To me it looks like a 7-wave.
ReplyDeleteYour wave 2 would be way to small in comparison to extended 3.
Sorry, had to run out earlier.
ReplyDeletePrechter corrupted Elliott's complex correction by introducing his WXYXZ notation and insisting that each of them be a standalone corrective pattern, an abc or a triangle.
And eliminating the "fractal" that any one of those 11 waves can be a combination correction in itself.
Compare Elliott's notation with Prechter's on EWP Page 53.
If you take a closer look at the entire minute 4 on the 30-min SPX Minuette chart, and try to count the subwaves for the w & y (even the x's) , you will find that they cannot be counted as individual corrective patterns per Prechter's notation, but are a combination correction themselves.
And that is why Elliott was careful in not using abc labeling in complex corrections, because he noticed it is not possible to count every triple as an abc, and the only requirement he stated is that it be a triple.
I think this observation was lost on Prechter and he decided to label every triple an abc, which you can see does not work on this Minute 4. But Elliott's labeling schemes leaves the door open for a triple to be an abc as well.
Hope this was helpful in understandind why I am using Elliott's notation.