Comments on: Ending Diagonal Leading Diagonal and Wedge Definitions SP500

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:19:39 +0000

Thanks Corey and appreciate your honesty and stance. My comments were directed toward those people who are new to playing the markets. Always maintain rigorous standards to weed out methods that are no better than hit or miss. Otherwise, it will be a very costly endeavor. Too many people see one count work and adopt EW as the Holy Grail only to regret it later.
FWIW, it works better as a tool to fade than rely upon. Most people currently label the recent high as just wave “a” of a larger a-b-c rebound. If the majority expects one scenario, the market will not accomodate them. You should be short now, with your stop above the recent highs.

By: Corey Rosenbloom

Corey Rosenbloom — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:38:17 +0000

Anon,

I’ll allow your comment to add an alternate perspective but remember I am not here to be a defender/guardian of Elliott Wave, nor do I advocate using Elliott Wave in isolation. It is but one indicator/method among many.

By: Corey Rosenbloom

Corey Rosenbloom — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:33:32 +0000

Rob,

I’m aware that is Prechter’s count (that we finished primary 1 and are in primary 2 and then primary 3, 4, and 5 are yet to come, taking us down to Dow Jones 400), but it is respectfully not a count I am willing to entertain in the slightest.

By: Corey Rosenbloom

Corey Rosenbloom — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:32:28 +0000

Anthony,

Thank you – yes, Prechter/Frost book is the next best thing to reading Ralph Elliott’s original work which would be much more expensive to collect and not contain modern charts/updates.

Glenn Neely has an excellent Elliott book out too that I’m reading now, but the Elliott Wave Principle is regarded as the modern day EW standard.

By: Corey Rosenbloom

Corey Rosenbloom — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:30:44 +0000

David,

No, at least I don’t think so. I believe we’re in Cycle C (from ABC of 2000-2009) and so I expect the 5 to be a 5-wave subdivision, so we would be in Primary 4 of Cycle C.

Another interpretation is that the March lows was Primary Wave 5 of C. That’s quite bullish, implying the correction is over.

I may indeed have that wrong but that’s how I’m interpreting it – other readers, feel free to share.

By: Corey Rosenbloom

Corey Rosenbloom — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:28:26 +0000

Thanks, Ted!

I’ll check you out.

By: Corey Rosenbloom

Corey Rosenbloom — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:27:14 +0000

Ken,

Thanks for reading and for your comments!

You’re right – it took me a while to get through Prechter’s book – it’s definitely not Sunday afternoon reading at the beach. You almost have to take notes of all the principles and memorize them as best you can – and even then you still have to go back to the book and reference like I had to here. I was mistaken on my interpretation of an Ending vs Leading diagonal.

Dr. Brett’s book is one of those deep-thinking books, though Trading in the Zone (Douglas) is fun but power-packed with information.

By: Corey Rosenbloom

Corey Rosenbloom — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:24:47 +0000

ABC,

Right – we should know soon (by next week perhaps) which pattern is dominant and playing out.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:34:03 +0000

I cannot believe intelligent people continue to use EW as a way to lose their money in the markets. As one who worked for the ‘premier’ exponent of EW, it only took me 17 years to realize it is useless.

Do yourself a favor, keep an honest track record of how many times you have to change your count to make sense of the market. It won’t take long to realize that every time you changed a count thinking you had it pegged, it only morphed into another situation where you have to change the count again. Meanwhile you are losing a lot of money do that. It doesnt work and is nothing more than mental gymnastics that will end up driving you crazy.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:15:37 +0000

I am under the impression that we have concluded a primary wave down, wave [1] and now are in wave [2]. It appears that we are nearing the completion of wave 1 of [2], rather than wave 4 of [1]. I believe this is the Elliott Wave Short-term Update’s position, although I am not a subscriber. Perhaps someone could shed some light on this for me.