|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
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.
|