|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
***********************************************************************************************
Greetings BobR:
Long time no chat! Thanks for providing another way of interpreting the current
Nasdaq setups. It's quite straight forward for me to interpret your TEI and
McClellan Oscillators. One question please. Since the TEI and the McClellan
Oscillators involve calculations in Advanced and Declined Issues. Could you
please suggest an efficient ways in incorporating these parameters to the
calculations on a day to day basis? This may sound odd to you as I have never
used Advanced and Declined Issues in indicators. Do one needs to manually
imputs those numbers everyday? Thanks in advance and regards.
Have a good one
Jeff Harteam
Hong Kong
BobR wrote:
> Hi, Jeffery. The Trend Exhaustion Index and a divergent McClellan
> oscillator for Nasdaq would tend to agree with your EW interpretation. Its
> this kind of breadth relationship that reinforces the EW turning points.
> TEInaz(red one) completed a double peak on Wednesday and Friday last week.
> It would have been more convincing though if Wednesday's TEI peak had been
> lower than October's as in the April/May bottoming, but its encouraging that
> it wasn't higher. McClellan Oscillator is at a higher level than in October
> as it was in April/May, but hasn't turned up yet nor has the new high - new
> low relationshipd turned up. A low Trend exhaustion is simply an
> exponential moving average of new lows divided by declining issues. New
> High TEI is new highs divided by advancing issues. The relationshipe
> between TEI up(green) and TEI down(red) clearly shows the Nasdaq at the low
> side of things.
>
> BobR
> http://www.oextrader.com/sigma_trader
***********************************************************************************************Brente
Wrote:
I seldom look at the NAS but for fun here is what I have. Pretty well
agrees with Jeff. Since the high side of the short term red channel is being
tested this could lead to a test of the longer term black channel making for
a short term consolidation, but lower prices look likely to me. However, if
the black channel is broken then we may have a reversal, until then I'd stay
with the channel.
Prosper
Greetings Brente:
Thanks for the contribution. I TOTALLY agree with your frame of mind in
looking at the market(s). Total objectivity is the name of the game in trading.
Price Actions precide everything else including ones own analysis. I never try
to pick the tops or the bottoms using my methods. I merely know how to TRADE the
markets. As you mentioned, Decisive breakouts will either validate or
invalidate my analysis. Whichever way the subsequent breakout will be, that is,
the validation or invalidation of the declining wedge, will produce explosive
moves anyway. The only ones who can capitalize the subsequent movement will be
the ones with TOTAL OBJECTIVITY in their frame of reference. Take care and
regards
Have a good one
Jeff Harteam
Hong Kong
***********************************************************************************************
Chalese Wrote:
Jeff & Group:
Looks and sounds like your interpretations lends itself to more
downside, correct? What is wrong with a=1, b=2, c=3, d=4 and
last Wednesday's new low where e=5 thus completing the wave 5?
Is that technically correct? That interpretations suggests that
the downmove is over and that last Wednesday's lows will not
be taken out. Thoughts and comments?.................................
I think I may have answered my own question. Jeff's original
interpretation would have to be the correct one since I ignored the
fact that the alleged wave 4 rose above the level of wave 2. And
that would change the count.
Chas
Greetings Charles:
Yes, exactly. I am aniticipating the ENDING of the whole corrective downmove
since 10/03/2000. There is ALWAYS the possibility in taking out last Wednesday's
low, resulting in much much lower prices in the Nasdaq, as warned by Carl and
Brente in their posts. Please refer to my original chart of the Nasdaq. I have
provided two fibo. clusters supports, +2785-2710- and +2572- . I would like to
see the index holds within the first fibo clusters. The break of the first fibo
clusters will result in the index nose-diving to the +2572- 'support' clusters.
In fact, I would tend towards the notion that if the first clusters got taken
out, the second fibo cluster will NOT hold at all. Eventhough I have Advance
GET, GET's MOB (Make Or Break) level is at the 2714 level; which is not a
surprise to me as GET's MOB is using fibo clusters to calculate. I always count
my own waves without peeping at the GET software as I do not believe in
mechanical wave counts. I only use it as a confirmation to my opinion(s). Hope
it help and Regards.
Have a good one
Jeff Harteam
Hong Kong
***********************************************************************************************
Carl Wrote:
Jeff,
i do not totally agree with your EW count, as for the location of B
(the green one). I would have put it at the previous top. Anyway, it
does not change a lot. One thing concerns me: perhaps you know the
Elliott rule stating that if you can clearly count a 5-waves in
the "A" leg, which is very obviously the case here, then you can be
pretty sure that the upcoming C wave will be 1.61 the length of "A",
which in this case would pull the Nasdaq down to...oh no...it's
impossible...damnit !
Carl
Greetings Carl:
Thank you for the input. NOTHING is impossible in trading....as all of us know
well :) In regards to your query of my labelling of Wave B (the green one), this
is exactly where my mentor and I disagree on. Chances are both you and my
mentor were right on. But as always, in Elliott Wave, as long as we agree on
the direction, that is good enough for me already. I trade the market and I am
not an analyst anymore. Therefore the correct identification of the direction of
the market is more of a concern to me than the placements of the labels. After
the trade, I will reflect what you and my mentor have contributed to refine my
labelling. On the second part of your post, you mentioned about Wave C has to
be 1.618 of Wave A, given that Wave A is a five-wave impulsive. I do agree with
you and I am aware of this particular guideline as well. Besides looking at
structures (patterns) of the market(s), I do incorporate Time Analysis as well.
Just as an example, attached is the Hang Seng Future during the 1997 Crash. It
was a clear 5-3-5 structure as well. Wave (c) stopped right at the .618 of the
previous Wave (a) on 08/13/1998. Time and Price converged on the said
date.....'Change is inevitable'. Take care and regards
Have a good one
Jeff Harteam
Hong Kong
************************************************************************************************
--- In realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx, Jeffrey Harteam <jharteam@xxxx> wrote:
> Greetings Traders:
>
> The Nasdaq Comp. is nearing its final leg of downmove to complete its
> intermediate correction a-b-c since 03/10/2000. The final wave 5 of c
> has taken the shape of a declining wedge. This is a classical 5-3-5
> Elliott Wave pattern. Regards
>
> Have a good one
> Jeff Harteam
> Hong Kong
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/152424/_/975334707/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
Description: ""
|