|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Ned,
If you are still using the program I sent you that does symmetry wave, you
would have noticed that it does
what you call "interim symmetric wave" which is a known bug as far as the
strict application of symmetric wave
is concerned.
However, your analysis of "interim symmetric wave" merely acknowledges
that a correction is usually of an ABC
nature and wave C has usually the same length with wave A except in this
case +/-20% of the initial correction of
the same degree which in my mindis a perfectly plausible extension to the
theory.
Clement
----- Original Message -----
From: Ned Markson <cnedgo@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 1999 6:17 PM
Subject: [RT] Re: MKT - S&P 500 12/17/99
> John -
>
> After our exchange today, I went back over the past few months of my
> archives published at http://start.cgirealm.com/signal/ to see where I
> had used the interim symmetric wave technique. As it turned out, there
> were four applications which forecasted the support correctly in the
> time frame which I checked. These were:
>
> 9/23/99
> 10/18/99
> 11/2/99
> 11/23/99
>
> and one application which didn't work at 11/15/99.
>
> Clearly it doesn't follow the rules spelled ot by Gur Dillon's method or
> your SymWave method. However, I have been quite enthused with it's use
> over the past year in identifying credible support areas.
>
> Thanks for your instructive remarks. They have helped me to better
> understand your approach which, as I mentioned to you some time ago, was
> what originally piqued my interest in this approach.
>
> Regards
>
> Ned Markson
>
> G.John Boggio wrote:
> >
> > Realtraders,
> >
> > Below is some analysis of the S&P 500 cash market in which Ned
Markson
> > and I were discussing. It pertains to symmetrical relationships and my
> > outlook on current market conditions. I am posting it on the RT Forum
for
> > your review.
> >
> > Hope you find it interesting,
> > John Boggio
> > PS The attached chart can be used for a reference with respect to my
> > conversation with Ned. (Note, the chart was generated by Ned)
> >
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Ned,
> >
> > I now see what you did, BUT if you are basing your wave analysis
method
> > on Michael Gur Dillon's method or my SymWave method, then your
projection
> > of wave 2.3-2.4 is incorrect. Reason, the high of 12/10/99 (wave 2.3
high)
> > needs to be greater than the 2.1 high on 12/3/99.
> >
> > Based on your snapshot of the .gif, there really is NO analysis that
> > could be conducted. Actually, based on the .gif, you would still need
to
> > wait for one of two things to occur. 1 - If we make a new high, then the
> > wave 2.1-2.2 will become a measurable wave. Or 2nd - if the market
> > declines BELOW the 2.2 low, then you would be able to measure a rally
wave
> > or bounce. At the present time, this rally would be measured FROM THE
2.2
> > LOW to the 2.3 HIGH (not a very big wave).
> >
> > Finally, when I look at the broader market since the October 18th
low,
> > there are NO wave structures except for the current high on 12/3/99 and
the
> > low of 12/9 (as you identified with wave 2.1-2.2). But as I said above,
> > the bottom of 12/9 is not guaranteed UNTIL THE MARKET RALLIES ABOVE THE
> > 12/3 HIGH.
> >
> > Further, when I try to find the next compete wave 1-2, I have to go
all
> > the way back to the July high (wave 1) and the October low (wave 2).
Since
> > the December High is greater than the July high and it has begun to roll
> > over, then we can temporally say that the 12/3 high is NOW A WAVE 3
> > HIGH. If this wave were to come to fruition, then the market would have
to
> > retrace all the way down to 1262 (186 pts +/- 20% or 37 pts). Note, I
do
> > not see this magnitude decline in the immediate future. Personally, I
> > believe this market has unbelievable strength and any declines will end
> > quickly. At the present time, I believe a worst case scenario decline
> > would take us down to approximately the 1340-1360 area. At which point
the
> > 12/3 high will still be Wave 1A and the bottom of say 1350 will be Wave
> > B. And again provide a strong springboard for the market to rally well
> > into the first quarter of 2000. Finally, if we do not get a selloff of
any
> > type between now and the end of the year, then I suspect the decline
will
> > begin approximately 2 weeks into the new year. This decline will start
> > when it is recognized that the Fed has begun shrinking the Money Supply
(M2
> > / M3). Once they do this, your decline will begin. At which point the
> > market will sell off and probably retrace approximately 50% of its rally
> > since the October low, thus taking us to that 1340-1360 area. From
there,
> > I would look for a retest of the highest high and then some sort of
failure
> > which should occur sometime in the first quarter of 2000. This failure
> > could then result in our biggest broad market decline in years,
measuring
> > anywhere from 20-37% (both of which are based on past symmetrical wave
> > declines AND ARE STILL VALID.
> >
> > Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts,
> > John Boggio
> > PS I might post some or all of the above analysis on the RT Forum if you
> > don't object.
> >
> > At 10:49 PM 12/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
> > Hi John -
> >
> > I attached a gif that hopefully explains what I was looking at on the
> > 15th. The picture has now changed, of course :) but this illustrates
> > what I saw at that time.
> >
> > Ned
> >
> > G.John Boggio wrote:
> > >
> > > Ned,
> > >
> > > I went to your website to see your symmetrical wave relationship
but
> > > could not find it. Could you give me a few more specifics on this
> > > wave, I can't find it when I look at my charts.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > John
> > >
> > > At 12:46 PM 12/15/99 -0500, you wrote:
> > >
> > > There is symmetric wave support for the SPX at 1366 which
> > > corresponds to a 38.4% retracement. Support on either side
> > > of
> > > this level exists at 1352 and 1380. If I had to guess, and I
> > > do
> > > every now and then, this range of support looks like the
> > > levels
> > > we are heading towards for this leg down.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Ned Markson
> > > http://www.erols.com/cnedgo
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Name: Snag-001.gif
> > Part 1.2 Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
> > Encoding: base64
>
>
|