Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (63510)	1/11/2003 4:21:41 PM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 209892

You need some net correction at the end of a corrective wave. Therefore da_chief's count could make sense at least in that time frame... I also try to count the waves on an indicator. My preference is stochastics. Most use MACD.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (63510)	1/11/2003 5:21:49 PM
From: UnBelievable	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 209892

That Is Not A Valid Elliot Count As he had it designated. Wave 2 corrects Wave 1 - it doesn't extend it. The way he has B of 2 going higher than 1 just does not work. It is specifically precluded by the rule that B must be shorter than A by price. He could change it by making 1 up extend to where he has placed his B of 2, and he could then put A down where he has his C of 2 is, which would call for us to go up in B of 2 in a retrace of the A. How far up might we go? B must be less than A and in fact the most likely length of b would be 38.2% of A, followed by 50%, and then 61.8%. So under that count we could be about to begin a rally of roughly 1,200 to 3,600 points after which we would begin C down. Then we would go down again in the C wave which would finish 2. C is most likely equal to A, followed by 61.8% of A and then 1.618 of A.