Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
Re: XAO Analysis
What I have done here is I have used Nicks raw chart for clarity, since it seems I agree with Nick on his wave (1) and (2) points and I agree with WP that the top of 1987 is a wave one... but we all differ from there.
The most significant difference is where I place my cycle III.
Yeah, I know you say wave threes cannot be the shortest... in this case by about 13 points from memory, about .5%. Is'nt that a bit trivial when you consider that there's at least an element of arbitraryness in the rules.
Why I place it there is partly about what I mentioned in the earlier post and that notion of 'proportion' and a bit about something motorway alluded to... but we'll let ya all work that one out for yerselves.
... and because Nicks leg (3) is a staggering 15 times leg (1) in price. I don't get that. Similarly but to a lesser extent, WP's second largest degree wave three, is something like five times wave one and wave five nearly double again.
... and also because when one considers the numbers and the market at the time Elliot came up with his rules the numbers are so exponentionally bigger now so that the slightest inaccuracy will be exponentially magnified over time... and as I said earlier if everyone, or enough to move the market is aware that it was approaching a correction time, wouldn't you get in early.
It looks to me like the perfect deception 'they' (refer Motorways post) would employ. All those who are strict stickers for rules would have dismissed it as a wave three and set themselves up for a miss-cue later on.
Yeah I know that last bit is a bit cynical... but, I like it anyway.
What I have done here is I have used Nicks raw chart for clarity, since it seems I agree with Nick on his wave (1) and (2) points and I agree with WP that the top of 1987 is a wave one... but we all differ from there.
The most significant difference is where I place my cycle III.
Yeah, I know you say wave threes cannot be the shortest... in this case by about 13 points from memory, about .5%. Is'nt that a bit trivial when you consider that there's at least an element of arbitraryness in the rules.
Why I place it there is partly about what I mentioned in the earlier post and that notion of 'proportion' and a bit about something motorway alluded to... but we'll let ya all work that one out for yerselves.
... and because Nicks leg (3) is a staggering 15 times leg (1) in price. I don't get that. Similarly but to a lesser extent, WP's second largest degree wave three, is something like five times wave one and wave five nearly double again.
... and also because when one considers the numbers and the market at the time Elliot came up with his rules the numbers are so exponentionally bigger now so that the slightest inaccuracy will be exponentially magnified over time... and as I said earlier if everyone, or enough to move the market is aware that it was approaching a correction time, wouldn't you get in early.
It looks to me like the perfect deception 'they' (refer Motorways post) would employ. All those who are strict stickers for rules would have dismissed it as a wave three and set themselves up for a miss-cue later on.
Yeah I know that last bit is a bit cynical... but, I like it anyway.