|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Ok
Regards
Peter Karaguleski
Nam Et Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven W. Poser (psn)" <swp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 18 November 2000 3:56
Subject: RE: [RT] Elliott Wave
> That is what I said. Neely is Neely Wave. It might be better than Elliott,
> but it is not Elliott, in my opinion. Elliott is Elliott Wave. We've been
> through this before Peter. Not going through it again.
>
> Steve
>
> ---
> Steven W. Poser, President
> Poser Global Market Strategies Inc.
> http://www.poserglobal.com
> swp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Tel: 201-995-0845
> Fax: 201-995-0846
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter [mailto:derivatives@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 11:53 AM
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RT] Elliott Wave
>
>
> "You cant get a little bit pregnant"..........there is only one elliott, &
> theres no inbetween or more or less. A market only has one correct
answer,
> so only one correct elliott approach.
> Regards
> Peter Karaguleski
> Nam Et Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, 18 November 2000 1:53
> Subject: Re: [RT] Elliott Wave
>
>
> > While not a purist's approach to EW, I think that there is a great deal
> > to be said for simplicity ... if the pattern is clear, it can be traded
> > and if it's not clear one should stand aside until it is clear. Not that
> > one might not miss some trades from correct interpretation of complex
> > patterns, especially all those zig zags and complex's, but trading is a
> > business of stacking the odds in one's favor so risk/reward should be
> > more favorable where the patterns are clear. For those reasons I prefer
> > Robert Miner's simplistic and straightforward approach to EW.
> >
> > Earl
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steven W. Poser (psn)" <swp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 7:39 AM
> > Subject: RE: [RT] Elliott Wave
> >
> >
> > > For some reason, my previous response did not get through.
> > >
> > > I have the Neely book. He has taken EWave beyond anything Elliott
> > wrote to
> > > the degree that it does not look like EWave anymore. The book is a
> > tough
> > > read. Neely may be an excellent analyst, but this book is not for
> > beginners.
> > > Every rule has 20 other rules attached to it. Wave counts from Neely
> > > followers look nothing like anything written by other EWavers. That
> > does not
> > > make it wrong or right, it just means that it is not what Elliott
> > wrote (in
> > > my opinion).
> > >
> > > You should get the book by Prechter/Frost of Elliott's original works.
> > Or,
> > > for the self-serving part of me, the book "New Thining in Technical
> > > Analysis: Trading Models From the Masters" and read the chapter that I
> > wrote
> > > on Elliott.
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/152424/_/974480753/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
|