|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Greetings Traders:
Adrian wrote:
While you are correct in saying that no
one KNOWS whether a given count is correct until after the event, it
is but a useless piece of information. We cannot trade on that. We
should only trade on scenario's of significantly high probability with
good reward/risk profiles. For example a trade with 90% certainty and
a reward/risk of 0.5 is good. Also good is 40% and 2.0. It is all
relative.
Back to the issue at hand. I may not be able to tell you what the
actual count is on the S&P (I don't do wave counts on that market),
but I can say with 90%+ certainty that Jeff will unfortunately have to
relabel his chart in due course. In the short term that may have no
practical trading consequences, but longer term he will ultimately
miss a higher degreee turning point.
Peter Wrote:
Elliott wave analysis is tough stuff. I never get stuck to one count
because
it is not the count that is important, but the direction a particular
scenario
implies. Your scenario is different than mine, and there are other
scenarios
quite plausible also, but the important thing to note is that your scenario
and mine both call for a move to the upside. Mine more than yours of
course,
but initially they both point up, and there is profit to be made when an
overwhelming number of scenarios point in the same direction, even if they
diverge down the road at some later time.
Adrain and Peter, point is well taken on the matter of alternation. When I
use Elliott Wave, the identification with the DIRECTION of the market with
high probability is more important to me than the labelling. I am the first
to admit to you, Adrian, that I use the eraser all the time :) That is no big
deal to me at all. From a trader's standpoint, it is more important to
identify,as you put it, the 'turning point' of the market than the labelling.
'Ideal' labelling, I admit for being an analyst at work, is very important but
it is not as important to a trader. And I certainly wouldn't go as far as
calling the information 'useless' and 'with no practical trading
consequences'. As a matter of fact, I always make sure when I post to the
list, the posts have to include some kind of practical trading values to the
readers. Or else, they will turn out to be a bunch of posts with empty words
and, personally, I hate that as well. In respect to relabelling, I ALWAYS
relabel my counts as the market(s) unfolds itself but at the same time, I also
make sure that I'm on the right side of the market all the time. I
couldn't put it any better than Peter, "...it is not the count that is
important, but the direction of a particular scenario implies". I also
checked out some of Peter's past .gifs when the S&P 500 had completed the
triangle and I especially enjoyed his commentaries when he suggested to the
readers not to jump the gun and should wait for the upside breakout of the
triangle before committing the longs(the upside breakout would've been the
inception of an impulsive move). This clearly suggests, to me at least, that
we should never try to PREDICT or FORECAST the market(s), and if I may allow
to add, especially on corrective waves. The eventual breakdown of the
triangle told us all that we are still in the completion of the corrective
fourth or corrective second (as per Peter's interpretations). Thank you all
for your contributions and regards.
P/S, Still in the process of fine-tuning the energy points and thanks for the
pointers, Pete :)
Have a good one
Jeff Harteam
Hong Kong
|