Re: Elliotscope : Update

[Fred Bender <fbender@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rajesh,
 I have a question which probably shows my total ignorance of Eliot
anaysis, but here goes:

---Does it help figure things out to note that every other index of US
stockmarkets hit a new low on Oct. 9th?

This procedure may not be strictly according to the rules, but the DJIA
is not very representative of the whole market and may have been the
only one to have "failed.".

Thanks for your analyses,

Fred Bender

Rajesh wrote:

> Extracts"
> We have to continue with our analysis.  The A-B-C irregular
> failure is complete.  Now we have to try and find out how to
> label this A-B-C to a wave of one higher degree.  The A-B-C is
> a corrective wave.  It can be any of the following waves.
> 1. (A) wave
> 2. (B) wave
> 3.  X  wave
> 4. Wave 2
> 5. Wave 4
> 6. The A-B-C could also be the first 3 of a running double-three
> 7. It could also be the second 3 of a running double-three
>
> Let us see if we can discard some of the above possibilities.
>
> 1. (A) wave
>    If the A-B-C is an (A) wave of one higher degree, the market
>    should follow-up with an upward (B) wave.  Somehow, I find
>    this very difficult to digest.  It goes against any logical
>    thinking.  So let us drop this possibility for the time being.
> 2. (B) wave
>    In this case, the market should open up an impulsive (C) wave
>    upwards.  This (C) wave should be at least 1.618 times the (A)
>    wave of the (A)-(B)-(C) pattern of which the A-B-C irregular
>    failure is the (B) wave.
> 3. X wave
>    I find this unlikely.  Although theoretically a X-wave can be
>    any corrective pattern, X waves are basically neutral patterns
>    connecting two corrective phases.  For a X wave to signal
>    strength or weakness in the market is an unlikely happening.
>    So, let us also keep this possibility out for the time being.
> 4. Wave 2
>    In that case, wave 3 should be a minimum of 1.618 times wave 1.
>    Of course, wave 3 must be impulsive.
> 5. Wave 4
>    If the irregular A-B-C failure was a 4th wave, then the 5th wave
>    will extend and must be a minimum of 1.618 times the 3rd wave.
> 6. If the A-B-C is the first 3 of a running double-three, then the
>    subsequent move upwards will be a corrective x-wave which must
>    exceed the top of wave B, i.e. 9367.
> 7. If it is the second 3 of a running double-three, the market has
>    just completed a 2nd wave of some degree and the subsequent
>    3rd wave upwards will be explosive
> "