|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Steve
"..........THEY LOOK NOTHING LIKE ANYTHING THAT R.N. ELLIOTT WROTE
ABOUT....."
...............................brings something to my mind steve
"We think so because other people all think so, Or because -- or because --
after all we do think so, Or because we were told so and think we must think
so, Or because we once thought so, and think we should still think so, Or
because having thought so, we think we WILL think so.
--------Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900)
...time will offcourse tell.
Regards Peter
----Original Message-----
From: steven poser <swp@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, 25 October 1998 4:35
Subject: Neely Wave
>There is a subset of people that call themselves Elliott Wave Analysts
>that follow the work of Glen Neely. Glen Neely is apparently a brilliant
>technical analyst who has developed a set of rules for counting waves. I
>have his book and have read parts of it, but found it quite convoluted.
>These rules seem to work quite well according to those that follow them.
>BUT, THEY LOOK NOTHING LIKE ANYTHING THAT R.N. ELLIOTT WROTE ABOUT.
>Though in his letters, he had examples of running corrections, he never
>prominently discussed them in his writings, suggesting that they were
>not a regular occurrence in his mind. While they may be more common than
>many analysts think, they are not present with the regularity suggested
>by Neely, in my opinion.
>
>I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS ANALYSIS IS INCORRECT. WITHIN THE
>GUIDELINES PROPOSED BY NEELY, THEY APPARENTLY WORK FINE, MAYBE BETTER
>THAN CLASSICAL EWAVE, BUT IT IS NOT ELLIOTT WAVE. IT IS NEELY WAVE.
>
>Understand, it is not a fight between Bob Prechter and Glen Neely. They
>know and respect each other. I do not necessarily agree with Prechter's
>counts either, but that is about how I view price developments. I use a
>similar methodology and rule set. Neely does not. He's made up his own
>rules and regulations that work too. That's fine. Its just not Elliott.
>His counting rules allow for and even force running corrections.
>Standard (not Prechter) Elliott does not.
>
>Those that follow Neely tell me that using Neely forces more
>objectivity. There are rules and regulations that cannot be broken. That
>does not mean that they do not change their counts on a regular basis,
>because they do. It is just that they have more rules than other EWavers
>do. At the end of July I asked somebody that follows Neely if stocks
>could fall sharply and was told "impossible." That was until the rules
>were broken and another count invented, MUCH LIKE I DO AND ALL ELLIOTT
>PEOPLE DO WHEN WE ARE WRONG.
>
>Steve Poser
>
|