Loading ...Light at the end of tunnel
Sam’s updated LT count for gold from Monday
“Gold price may fall .. below Dec 2016 low of 1124 to 1100; however I don’t expect it to fall below Dec 2015 low of 1040”
Then, a large PM rally begins later this fall.
But its not a buy and hold.
“Green C down in above count is shown to stop at Dec 2015 low of 1045. However in reality I expect it to fall a lot lower than 1045. The green arrowhead for green C down is restricted by the scale on the weekly chart.”
Interesting!! Thanks for sharing.
Why Sam thinks final wave b (green) is going to be 5 wave structure?
Agree grand super cycle wave IV is yet to unfold once the cycle wave b is complete. What structure does Sam calls this cycle wave b after 2015 low?
My wave analyst has four structures for cycle wave b and all of them are valid as of today.
Triangle, Flat, combination, double ZZ.
Of these only double ZZ resembles Sama count. Only in DZZ count the target for gold is above 1450 and higher. Remaininng counts gold high to remain below 1320.
So it is not yet settle what the final out come is going to be unless gold takes out 1377. As for going lower DZZ will get invalidated if gold falls below 1123 low.
“Why does Sam think final wave b (green) is going to be 5 wave structure?”
He doesn’t. Wave B green is an abc structure (in orange), since it starts at the end of Wave A green.
The five waves up in red, are the subwaves of orange c. C waves are always in five waves.
Thanks.
Who is SAM??
Have yet to meet the man. Why does it matter?
His track record matters pedro
You post his work so who is he is a good question
A fair chunk of his track record is on the site. And I disagree on the second point.
EW is a hypothesis in detail, going back in time, and forward. Its there for anyone with adequate skill to dissect in detail and evaluate ON THEIR OWN. The forecast follows from the past. If you don’t agree with the count to date, you can dismiss the forecast and move on. That’s what matters. With EW, you REALLY don’t even have to know their track record to assess a chart …it doesn’t hurt … but counts do evolve. Now, yes, you REALLY DO have know EW to evaluate a chart for its value “in the present.” But that should be entirely sufficient. That’s the beauty of EW. Its about adherence to rules.
In any event, if someone wants to evaluate his track record, they can search this site for that. AFAIK, there is no other Sam here. I’ve shared what I know, which is next to nothing, in the past. And that’s the sum of it. I’m fine with that. As with all analysis, take it or leave it applies.
Moreover, I really don’t “KNOW” anyone who posts here. And no one has to know anything about others to evaluate their analysis. In fact, the most important thing no one shares, but should, is their respective time frames for trading. Bullish and bearish posturing means nothing to a reader if you can’t discern their trading style. That’s almost never shared.
I’ve been posting Sam’s work for 2-3 years now, here. Its either useful to folks, in the present, or its not. Who Sam is has nothing to do with that.
We do assume that you think Sam is a good Technician ….else why would you keep posting his work ?
If you don’t agree with his counts why post them ?
Most of us post work we believe in
“If you don’t agree with his counts why post them ?”
Software is not allowing me to respond to your reply (no Reply Link in your post). But this is one.
First … I post them b/c this is a PM site and that’s his analytical focus via EW. There aren’t many out there.
Second … I post them, regardless of what I think, if he’s calling for a significant move, especially one contrary to prevailing opinion. EW is very useful in that respect — at least to me. I did that last fall … and also noted my dissension or ambivalence at the time. But he was wrong in calling for a northward bull move to green B at that time, out of the sideways forever triangle. No one is perfect. The larger pattern remains intact however. Its just taking longer in time.)
So yes, if I don’t agree with his analysis, I’ll still post it but say so. I use a completely different type of analysis, one I can’t display or describe because of its multi layered construction.
So IMPLICITLY, when I’m posting Sam’s EW, without caveats, I’m also sharing what MY WORK is saying in a language that others can understand. Its the best I can do. If I have strong opinions from my work, and Sam’s counts are in line with that, its how I share my outlook with others. Its a communications tool. If Sam is on another page, I’ll find someone else’s count that fits my work. But Sam does good work so he’s among the most reliable I’ve found.
” But Sam does good work so he’s among the most reliable I’ve found.” There is one more but one has to subscribe. But you may have already discarded that work.
Any how well said about EW works.
What is his site?? do you have a link?