OMX
Text i diagrammet!
Henrik, alias Herkules
finimej!
Får du verkligen till en impuls i juli-nedgången, som en avslutande våg C? Jag gör inte det...
Henrik, alias Herkules
#2 Vill du numrera impuls räkningen för C wave ?
jag tror den egentliga toppen sattes i mars
#4
Jag brukar numrera trianglar A-B-C-D-E, alltså 5 ben. I din triangel ser jag bara 3. Kan tyvärr inte numrera C-vågen eftersom jag f.n. inte har intradaydata.
Henrik, alias Herkules
6
nåt sånt ja :-)
Köper aldurs räkning. Ett solklart alternativ! Får väl hålla linjerna under uppsikt och ha dem som vågdelare. Som Piraya alltid säger så är det inte viktigast att ha rätt utan att tjäna pengar.
Henrik, alias Herkules
Inlägget är redigerat av författaren.
Det är det problem med EWI. totalt tror jag EWI har 11 mönster för korrektion vågor.
Jag tycker 6# bilden bör vara. Våg 4 är en perfekt abcde, och e får brytta sitt trendgolvet.
mvh
#7 Precis min åsikt också. Korrektioen började i mars med en exp.flat som blev klar i maj.
Därefter har jag en till flat, fast åt andra hållet. Dess C-våg är klar nu eller om ett fåtal dagar. Återstår fas 3 ned till en ny low troligen som en zz.
Men sen blir det jätterally under nåt år eller två.......jihaaa
mvh
Fibonacci & Elliott --- Vetenskap & Konst
#8 Ja ha ,om du inte kan numrera den hur kan du veta att den är impuls då ?!
Jag bara undrar menar inget annat faktiskt .
angående aldur ,den är ingen RUNNING triangel eftersom den springer helt enkelt inte.
#6 En running triangle ska se ut att ha lite bråttom liksom. Din ser lite trött ut :-)
mvh
Fibonacci & Elliott --- Vetenskap & Konst
Ett litet förslag, då. :-)
Min enda invändning mot "aldur-räkningen" är att sista våg E ser lite kort ut... Den brukar ju snarare vara lite mer tilltagen och ofta orsaka en "throw over". Men osvuret osv...
Henrik, alias Herkules
#16 hade e funderingar, men dissade dom redan runt 655 tror jag.
Var lite för starkt här hemma för det, den borde gått i mål runt 620 någonstans.
Men compen kan man nog räkna hem den, vilket torde vara viktigare.
Själv siktar jag något mer bearish än så tills vi åtminstonde bryter 700 med fart.
Där lägger jag undan värsta nalleräkningen, och börjar damma av bullen istället.
>728 skaffar jag horn :-)
Om däremot nallen är den rätta så ska den här inte se sig om uppåt före 610 någonstans. Tidigast.
575-610 blir det på den i så fall, med bra momentum.
Ju mer fipplande, ju lägre sannolikhet som jag ser det.
appropå running:
"However, it is extremely common for the wave B of a contracting triangle to exceed the start of wave A in what may be termed a running triangle...."
Så den kan kallas running även om den inte lutar uppåt. Även om den hade varit ännu snyggare om den lutat uppåt.
appropå E:
"Wave E can undershoot or overshoot the A-C line, and in fact, our experience tells us that it happens more often then not."
Så var det med det ;-)
Metod! Angående min numrering av våg C som en impuls - den har det rätta utseendet och liknar inte en korrektion. Man kan ju alltid invända att man borde kontrollräkna på högre upplösning, men att t.ex sitta med tickdata för att verifiera ett 15- eller 60-minuters diagram är lite överambitiöst och långsökt. Låter Prechter motivera:
"The overall appearance of a wave must conform to the appropriate illustration. Although any five-wave sequence can be forced into a three-wave count by labeling the first three subdivisions as one wave "A""... "it is incorrect to do so. The Elliott system would break down if such contortions were allowed. A long wave three with the end of wave four terminating well above the top of wave one must be classified as a five-wave sequence. Since wave A"... "is composed of three waves, wave B would be expected to drop to about the start of wave A, as in a flat correction,"... "While the internal count of a wave is a guide to its classification, the right overall shape is, in turn, often a guide to its correct internal count."
Henrik, alias Herkules
Inlägget är redigerat av författaren.
#19 Din triangel är nonlimiting ,nonlimiting kan inte vara running ,för att triangeln ska vara limiting och i så fall running då ska inte C ta mer än 62% av B då är det oftast limiting och om den är running samtidig då är den tvungen och gå med trenden eftersom C är kortare än B (oftast),om den är nonlimiting och går med primär trend upp och samtidigt running då måste jag säga att den måste vara väldigt väldigt rare ,personligen har inte sett en sån (hittils) i så fall kan det hända hos commodities men inte ens där har jag sett en sån.
iofs det är Guideline och inte rule men hur som helst nonlimiting kan ej vara running i så fall väldigt sällsynt .
#20 Angående impuls lägger jag ut lite regler:
Impulse Rules:
An Impulse is a five Wave pattern labeled 1-2-3-4-5 moving in the direction of the larger trend. It is the most common Elliott Wave pattern.
Wave 1 must be an Impulse or a Leading Diagonal.
Wave 2 may be any corrective pattern except a Triangle.
No part of Wave 2 can more than retrace Wave 1.
Wave 2 must retrace Wave 1 by a minimum of 20%.
The maximum time for Wave 2 is nine times Wave 1.
Wave 3 must be an Impulse.
Wave 3 must be longer than Wave 2 in gross distance by price.
The gross price movement of Wave 2 must be greater than either Wave 2 of Wave 1 or Wave 4 of Wave 1. The gross price movement of Wave 2 must also be greater than either Wave 2 of Wave 3 or Wave 4 of Wave 3. Wave 2 must also be greater than 61.8% of the gross movement of each of the above 4 sub-Waves.
Wave 3 and Wave 1 cannot both have 5th Wave failures. (A Failure is an impulsive Wave where Wave 5 is shorter than Wave 4 by price.)
Wave 3 cannot be less than 1/3 of Wave 1 by price.
Wave 3 cannot be more than 7 times Wave 1 by price.
Although there is no minimum time constraint for Wave 3, its absolute maximum time limit is 7 times Wave 1.
Wave 4 can be any corrective pattern.
Waves 1, 2 and 4 cannot overlap except by 15% of Wave 2 with leveraged securities, and then only for a maximum of less than two days.
The gross price movement of Wave 4 must be greater than either the gross movement of Wave 2 of 3 or Wave 4 of 3. The gross price movement of Wave 4 must also be greater than either the gross movement of Wave 2 of 5 or Wave 4 of 5. The gross movement by price of Wave 4 must also be greater than 61.8% of the gross movement of each of these four subwaves.
The gross movement by price of Wave 4 must be greater than 1/3 of the gross movement of Wave 2 by both price and percentage movement.
The gross movement by price for Wave 4 must be less than three times the gross movement of Wave 2 by both price and percentage movement.
Wave 3 and Wave 4 cannot both be failures. (A Failure is an impulsive Wave where Wave 5 is shorter than Wave 4 by price.)
Although Wave 4 has no minimum time constraint, the maximum time for Wave 4 is twice the time taken by Wave 3.
Wave 5 must be an Impulse or an Ending Diagonal. However, if Wave 5 is longer than Wave 3 by price, then Wave 5 must be an Impulse.
Wave 5 must move by price more than 70% of Wave 4. (This is not gross movement. Only consider the end points of both Waves.)
Wave 3 must never be shorter than both Wave 1 and 5, by either price distance or percentage price movement.
If Wave 5 is truncated, or contains an Impulse that is truncated, then neither Wave 3 nor Wave 4 can contain a subwave that is truncated. (A truncated pattern is where Wave 5 is shorter than Wave 4. This is also known as a failure.)
The maximum movement of Wave 5 is six times Wave 3 in both price and time.
Wave 5 has no minimum time constraint.
Impulse Guidelines:
Wave 1 can be a Leading Diagonal, but this is rare.
Wave 2 is usually a Zigzag based pattern.
Wave 2 usually takes a small amount of time compared to Wave 1. However, Wave 2 is usually takes more than 10% of the time taken by Wave 1.
Wave 2 generally retraces more than 30% of Wave 1 including internal data points.
Wave 2 will usually retraces less than 80% of Wave 1 .
The most likely retracement for Wave 2 is 50% or 61.8% of Wave 1.
The gross price movement of Wave 2 should be greater than the gross price movement of Waves 2 of 1, 4 of 1, 2 of 3 and 4 of 3.
If the gross movement of Wave 2 is between 33% and 40.3% retracement of Wave 1, it is most likely complete.
If the gross movement of Wave 2 has retraced to end of previous Wave 4 of 1, then it is most likely complete.
It is unlikely that Wave 3 will be shorter than Wave 1 by price.
The most likely price range for Wave 3 is between 1.5 and 3.5 times the price range of Wave 1.
Most likely range in time for Wave 3 is between 1 and 4 times the time taken by Wave 1.
Wave 4 is rarely a Zigzag based correction.
It is common for both Waves 4 & 2 to have approximately the same price movement.
Wave 4 will most often retrace more than 20% of Wave 3, including internal points.
Wave 4 will very often retrace about 38.2% of Wave 3.
Wave 4 does not often retrace Wave 3 by more than 50%.
Wave 4 will often retrace into the price territory of previous Wave 4 of Wave 1.
Wave 4 will most often retrace to the end of the previous Wave 4 of one lesser degree.
Waves 2 & 4 usually alternate between Zigzag and Flat. The other alternation is between a Triangle and a Flat.
Leveraged markets may at times overlap by up to 15% of Wave 2 by price.
The gross price movement of Wave 4 should be greater than the gross price movement of Waves 2 of 3, 4 of 3, 2 of 5 and 4 of 5.
Expect the time taken by Wave 4 to be between 100% - 270% of the time taken by Wave 2.
Wave 5 will usually move beyond the end of Wave 3.
When Wave 5 is extended (more than 161.8% longer than both Waves 1 and 3) a point within Wave 4 will often divide the entire Impulse Wave by 1.618.
If Wave 5 is extended (more than 161.8% longer than both Waves 1 and 3), it is common for its price length to be about 161.8% of the gross price length between the beginning of Wave 1 to end of Wave 3.
It is unusual for Wave 5 to travel a greater price or time percentage than Wave 3 traveled in its entirety.
The most likely price targets for Wave 5 are: 61.8% of Wave 1, 100% of Wave 1, 161.8% of Wave 1, 161.8% of the length from the beginning of Wave 1 to end of Wave 3.
If Wave 3 is about equal to 161.8% of Wave 1 by price, the most likely time for Wave 5 is about equal to the time taken by Wave 1.
One of the Impulse Waves (Waves 1, 3 or 5) generally extends (at least 162% times the next longest Impulse Wave).
The most likely Wave to extend is the 3rd Wave of an Impulse. However, in leveraged funds when the Impulse is rising and the degree is Primary or above, the most likely Wave to extend is Wave 5.
A non-extended 5th Wave of less than Primary degree usually has a lower peak volume than a third Wave. However, when the 5th Wave extends (less than Primary degree), Wave 5 has usually shows more volume.
Wave 5, when complete, usually has a lesser slope than Wave 3. However, in leveraged securities when the Impulse is rising and the degree is Primary or above, this is not usually the case.
Wave 5 is usually less than 4 times length of Wave 3 by time.
metod
Tackar skall lusläsa senare :-) Min fråga är vems regler är det Prechter (EWP)
eller Neelys (Mastering Elliott Wave) eller någon annans ???
Möjligt att du skrivit det någonstans som jag inte sett.
mvh
det ser ut som guidlines från elliotician
#23 eftersom här pratar vi inte NeO waves då la jag ut regler för traditionell EWT från steven williams.
Dör har du säkert varit :-)
det är guidelines från EWT program, använder man alla dessa när man räknar själv får man aldrig ihop en vettig räkning är min erfarenhet....
Det finns 3 huvudregler inom EWT, no more no less
Visa sida
Ogilla! 8
Gilla!
Björn skriker ut med minsta rekyl i detta läget, specialt vid våg 2.
Jag tror att det räcker med 5.2 till 676 (din fib nivå), sedan drar det vidare upp. men vi får se.