Loading ...EW — an update
The intended audience for my technical posts on the market are those who have some basic grasp of EW.
In college, some courses have pre requisites. My T/A posts tend to require some basic level familiarity with EW.
Anyone can read them of course, but they won’t make sense unless EW makes sense to you.
And it will NEVER be my intention to explain them. Not in real time. Not even later.
I’m not trying to convey bottom lines to everyone in this forum. Just those who have been following along with me in a series of posts I’ve made for SPX.
I’m simply passing along my reads, using EW as a common language for those who speak it. However few that may be.
As for those details on terminology etc, that is an education I’m not here to provide.
It takes time and commitment to learn another language, yes.
So its up to you if you wish to “follow” the meaning of what I write. (Or others who post on the web.)
Which often points toward the future as much as it describes the present.
Anyone who understands EW and has followed my posts on “to B” since January knows what I’m saying.
I get cryptic on busy days like this. And that’s how it will always be. Its a fly by day.
As Panda is saying on his feed, “gradually then suddenly” and we are still only in the “gradually” phase.
So I will get even MORE cryptic as this summer wears on. Trust me. Its coming. After B comes C (or 3).
Everybody knows. Its the OPTIMIST in me that looks for B. (more on this below)
I can’t make heads or tails of any of Nightingale’s charts. No worries. Post away.
I can’t make sense out of chartology. At all. To each his own.
I ignore what I can’t make sense out of. Feel free to do the same with mine.
Here is the Large Tri that I’ve been discussing forever, that is still valid, but I’ve now discounted it.
https://twitter.com/MasterPandaWu/status/1653441907438272512
Here is the Larger outline of a path to B, then C down. As posted this AM.
https://responsive.fxempire.com/cdn/n/n/_fxempire_/2023/05/chart-description-automatically-generated-14.png
I think the path is a bit different locally, but we’re still on course for blue B. .
I think Dr. Ter Shure’s later July time frame aligns better with my work.
Its a matter of teasing out the detail for the micro path from here. Adapt along the way. Nothing locked in.
Here is Sam’s take (with smaller e down of triangle as one of two options; timeline is NOT to scale !!!)
https://imageshack.com/i/pmH5dxQJj
That’s the question for this week. Do we get the e ? (and Sam’s red b is conceptually identical to blue B above)
Taverna this afternoon looks at the big picture from the early 2022 highs, and lays out the corrective ABC case, but allows for THE TOP and five down.
Either way, we have yet to complete B or 2 whichever course we’re on.
http://studyofcycles.blogspot.com/2023/04/weekly-evidence.html weekly
Joe: “The weekly wave sequence can still be counted as Intermediate (A)/(1), (B)/(2) where (B) can become a triangle, or (2) might end with an ending diagonal C wave. However, this last scenario still needs a higher high third wave in the ES.”
http://studyofcycles.blogspot.com/2023/05/gap-lower-nothing-brutal-just-yet.html
And here’s Dan take on a local triangle option out of which we spurt higher into the (2) count rebound high.
https://danericselliottwaves.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/wlshbul.png
NTA = not trading advice.
GL = good luck.
Thanks for clearing that up pedro
So many E wavers and not one can agree
sheesh
It will NEVER be about reaching agreement. It can’t be.
The markets are probabilistic, and its about having OPTIONS clearly in mind. Then seeking validation or invalidation using defined levels AT WHICH TIME you are right or wrong then ideally with only small losses if wrong. EW tells you when you are wrong.
Its like playing the odds in poker. Same deal.
Possibly E-wavers and Chartologist can’t communicate and/or understand eachother. Makes sense.
Since I’ve never seen chartology EXPLAINED (just presented), I can’t follow its reasoning.
And yes, EWers likely AGREE almost completely …. if you told them to lay out the various DISCRETE possibilities. They disagree on the odds for each, and they usually have different labeling schemes that make them look more different than they really are. And they will disagree on the smaller details of course.
Most would ALL AGREE INSTANTLY on the two major counts off the TOP.
12345 uber bear, or ABC down corrective. Most favor one option or another and present just one option. But many will present multiple options reflecting the non certain odds of any one they may prefer. And yes there is a bullish option remaining but Panda (as one example) recently gave it 1% odds but didn’t ignore it. There is no certainty, and if you follow any of them closely, that becomes clear at inflection points when they outline if this then that or, etc.
Chartology is SIMPLE….thats why I like it
Impulse moves end in consolidations which make repeatable patterns ( triangles flags diamonds wedges) so you draw and redraw lines during the consolodation…whichever way the patterns break out is likely the next impulse move
Odds always favor continuations but when the break is against the grain it’s a reversal
Thats IT
I appreciate that from a charting perspective, but not from a trading perspective.
I don’t believe in setting stops 20 to 30% below an entry point (as I’ve regularly seen done using chartology). And stops (for me) are defined by the last pivot low. That’s the money management dimension to trading.
If I can’t spot and enter a trade right after a turn within 10%, I move on. Meaning, breakouts are useless to my style of trading since they happen later. (Backtests would be a different beast.)
MY PROBLEM is that impulses channel, and while EW recognizes impulses in part by their channeling behavior, my own software can’t spot channels. Often, turns within an impulse happen right at channel boundaries.
I get it
Different strokes and all that
Buying a succrssful backtest is the best you can do
Hard to wait after a breakout though..but most moves do backtest
Well for EW-ers that might all be clear but for the general other part of the readers (I would say 98%), what is the problem with adding a STANDARD graph explaining the letters; explaining the MOVE. This has been requested multipe times. If you believe to say that it is for a certain ‘developed’ audience … I call it outright arrogance.
“I call it outright arrogance.”
You can call it whatever you want.
There have been dozens of books written on EW and it only takes one second with google to find countless online resources describing the methodology and terminology. They can do 101 or they can go much deeper.
I see nothing remotely like that for chartology or your approach for that matter. The burden is on you, not me.
AND, I should add, once again, that I don’t do EW myself, I use my charting system to provide guidance on which EW outlook (proposed by others) is being confirmed or invalidated.
In an attempt to be clearer, that means I use EW as a common language (or sounding board) and not as MY OWN ANALYTICAL STYLE. Because its not. That is a big difference.