|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Please refer to my reply to Tom Stein........
regards Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Alexander <gta3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, 23 January 1999 1:15
Subject: Re: SP500 Index Analysis
>Peter,
>
>You constantly deride what you refer to as "loose form Elliott", and then
>present your analysis as the "correct" Elliott wave count. Also, you
>mention Prechter as one of the loose form practitioners, and based on what
>I understand your definition of a loose form practitioner to be, that's
>accurate.
>
>All of us "loose form practitioners" have in common a study of and very
>close agreement with the work of R.N. Elliott. That is ultimately the
>standard one would apply in making an argument for or against another
>practitioner's wave count.
>
>Based on what I have seen of your work it in no way resembles the work of
>R.N. Elliott. It may be more accurate. It may be more practical. But it is
>not Elliott wave based on the writings of R.N. Elliott.
>
>How about explaining the basis of what you call Elliott? Who came up with
>the counting technique? At least we loose form practitioners can point to
>the origination of the technique. This makes it possible for anyone to
>study it for themselves and make up their own mind as to its validity of
>lack thereof.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Alexander
>
>----------
>> From: Peter [ KKD ] <derivatives@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: SP500 Index Analysis
>> Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 8:25 AM
>>
>> Strange how "loose form elliott"(LFE) corresponds at times with
>proper
>> elliott.
>
|