|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
In a message dated 97-08-03 19:15:32 EDT, you write:
<< I think the size of the corrections depends on what degree wave they're
in. I've been "dabbling" in Elliott Wave, and I'm still very much a
novice. This morning, it dawned on me that perhaps 1987 and 1990
corrected 50% of their respective moves from 1982 and 1987 because they
were Wave 2s, with 1987 being of larger degree.>>
I don't believe there are any hard and fast rules for testing wave lengths,
and knowing when a correction has finished correcting what is believed to be
an impulse wave. Because Elliott discussed the concept of wave "degree", and
everyone acknowledges the concept, I think there must be something in the way
of similarity between waves to consider them of the same "degree".
The proposition (accepted by many) that a few weeks in Sept./October 1987 was
enough to correct the entire advance from 1982 seems a little far fetched to
me. A two week move retracing about 38% of a five year move, just is not
enough in my mind to consider the 1987 drop as being of the same wave degree
as the run-up from 1982.
That means the drop in 1987 was only the first part of something more
complex. On a log graph look at 1987 to 1992 on the screen at once. Rather
than 1987 being the entire correction, think of it as the first drop, or
first wave, of an “upsloping” triangle. The final wave of the triangle
ending December 1991. The whole pattern over this period complies with many
of the rules I use to confirm triangular activity. The thrust upward in
early 1992 broke the upper trendline of this triangle running from 8/25/87 to
7/17/90. It may also be argued that this triangle didn't even finish until
the end of 1994. The final wave of this very large triangle was itself a
triangle, and took the entire year of 1994 to finish to form.
Am I correct? No idea. Elliott Wave is the art of managing probabilities.
These scenarios seems more probable to me.
Peter
|