Ewj: elliott wave
- Thread starter mu200411
- Start date
Quote from mu200411:
This is a not so perfect count of Gold Chart.
Isn't EW all about probabilities?
And probabilities means other outcomes can happen.
Quoted from "Elliott Wave Principle", 20th Anniversary Edition, p87:
Without Elliott, there appear to be an infinite number of possibilities for market action. What the Wave Principle provides is a means of first limiting the possibilities and then ordering the relative probabilities of possible future market paths. Elliottâs highly specific rules reduce the number of valid alternatives to a minimum. Among those, the best interpretation, sometimes called the âpreferred count,â is the one that satisfies that largest number of guidelines. Other interpretations are ordered accordingly.
As a result, competent analysts applying the rules and guidelines of the Wave Principle objectively should usually agree on both the list of possibilities and the order of probabilities for various possible outcomes at any particular time. That order can usually be stated with certainty. Do not assume, however, that certainty about the order of probabilities is the same as certainty about one specific outcome. Under only the rarest of circumstances do you ever know exactly what the market is going to do. You must understand and accept that even an approach that can identify high odds for a fairly specific event must be wrong some of the time.
You can prepare yourself psychologically for such outcomes through the continual updating of the second best interpretation, sometimes called the âalternate count.â Because applying the Wave Principle is an exercise in probability, the ongoing maintenance of alternative wave counts is an essential part of using it correctly. In the event that the market violates the expected scenario, the alternate count puts the unexpected market action into perspective and immediately becomes your new preferred count. If youâre thrown by your horse, itâs useful to land right atop another.
The thing about EW that confuses most is the possibility of numerous counts. It's with experience that we can say which counts are more probable than others. Sometimes we get lucky and have only one possible count ($$$$$). The bullish count off the bottom for gold, although valid, seems a lot less "probable" due to the length of some of the sub-waves time wise. Counting a double zig zag off the bottom is much easier along with a triangle B-wave (very common). Commonality helps increase probability which is my reasoning for leaning toward the corrective count I posted earlier towards new lows in gold.
Yes, there is a Bradley date coming up but let's not fool ourselves . . . the Bradley has not shown a very strong correlation with any particular moves in the S&P this year.
http://www.marketmulticycles.com/marketmulticycles9.htm
As for Mup, he last posted on Aug. 28th.
Not sure why he would simply be content with "reading" the thread, as opposed to posting a comment or two.
Strange.