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 : Waiting for the big Kahuna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (33462)	11/10/1998 11:57:00 PM
From: Bull RidaH	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 94695

Claude, When reviewed according to hard and fast rules of EWT, that count would be in err and would not be legitimate under Official Wave count rules. After finding 2 violations, i quit working on it because there was no point in going further. Here are the 2 requirements of acceptable wave counts that i immediately found were violated. * 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. Primary 4 in the count rendered (the '87 crash)had a gross price movement of nearly 6 times that of Primary 2. * The gross price movement of Wave 2 must also be greater than either Subwave 2 of Wave 3, or Subwave 4 of Wave 3. Intermediate 2 of Primary 5 in the count rendered does not meet this requirement. One other severe problem with the count I noticed was that it has intermediate 4 running from 8/97 til now. That would require the B wave rally to span from either the fall '97 low or the Jan '97 low, however the counter had it labeled. Thus wave B would have extended to the 7/98 highs. This violates EWT rules, as Wave B can be no greater than twice that of Wave A in gross price movement, regardless of the type of correction. For a complete list of EWT rules and guidelines, see: geocities.com Regards, David