|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Yes, I manually enter the data each afternoon about 2.5 hours after the
close when the data is stabelized. Issues and new highs, new lows don't
change but volume data changes up to 1.5 hours after the close. So I run
the TEI on NYA and NASDAQ and I also run the McClellan oscillator on both
issues and volume for both indexes. Am inclined to believe that when the EW
pivots also coincided with overbought or oversold issue and volume and new
high, new low readings you have a load the boat kind of trade.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Harteam" <jharteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: [RT] Re: NASDAQ COMP. Wave Counts
>
****************************************************************************
*******************
>
> 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
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/152424/_/975335650/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
|