Wave 2 progressing, part VIII
Wave 2 is progressing as expected. A first move down, which looks like an impulse, has completed and with that the first leg down.
Zooming in to the 3 hour chart, we can see that prices are breaking through a resistance line in what seems to be a b-wave.
After wave b, we have to expect a wave c down (possibly as above), when we'll be looking at the end of wave 2.
It shouldn't take too long as the weekly stochastics are quite oversold already and have limited room to the downside.
The daily stochastics, on the contrary, have created some luft for themselves.
Near the top of the b-wave (around $8750) I will be closing my written October puts for a nice profit. I will not trade the c-wave down as I'm too bullish for a short position. Also, there may not be a c-wave; as there is the option of prices exploding upwards from here. I don't think that's very likely, but it's a possibility.
Why are you expecting WXY? I think it is a B triangle and this shallow correction right now is wave 4 of C nearing completion.
Ah, a technical question. Thanks.
Well, the reason for labelling the whole wave 2 correction as an WXY instead of an ABC is because the first leg (until the purple, encircled w) looks like a complex correction to me. In the sense that it is not a flat or a zigzag. The first, red wave (a) of purple, encircled w looks like a double zigzag to me. The following red wave (b) also looks like a double zigzag. Red wave (c) may even be a triple zigzag. Therefore, the first leg of the wave 2 correction must be a wave w. Encircled wave w is then followed by an encircled wave x triangle and encircled wave y, where we're in right now, will most likely also consist of a complex pattern, meaning: after this impulse down, a correction and another impulse down should follow.
I agree that what I've labelled as an orange b-wave can also be labelled as a wave 4. So far, my preference is with the current count.
Is your point perhaps that wave w should subdivide also in an wxy and not in an abc, because then, I think, you are right. Although, it is a minor issue.
First of all, there is no such thing as a combination of a double zigzag and a triple zigzag for wave W or any other wave. That's BS, don't know where you heard that this is a possible count.
And waves c can never be a triple zigzag. WTF? c must always be a 5 wave impulse unless in a triangle.
WXY cannot subdivide as wxy... please tell me who taught you this BS. I hope that you did not read that in a book.
You should read my next post about BTC for sure.
Ah, that what it's about. Please see below my source: https://www.elliottwave.com/free-reports/elliott-wave-principle. I don't think I'm going to see yours.
In addition, I must ask you to civilize your tone or take your frustrations and disappointments somewhere else.
LOL. I didn't click the link but if ew. com really published this, I am highly disappointed...
I learned from the most famous german Trader Andre Tiedje, 25year EW Pro, you can buy his book at amazon. He says R.R. Prechter is wrong on so many levels and I agree.
https://www.amazon.de/Elliott-Wellen-leicht-verst%C3%A4ndlich-Andre-Tiedje/dp/3898795039
It makes no sense to allow anything that R. N. Elliott did not allow when he developed the ruleset.
By the way, he publically traded 100k to 29 Million in the last 13 years, all trades published with video and picture proof in his trading room.
So you're following Elliott waves as layed out by Andre Tiedje. There is also Glenn Neely and probably dozens of others who have defined their own interpretation of Elliott waves. And that's all fine, but obviously there are going to be different rules and guidelines floating around, depending on who's preferences you choose to follow. Claiming the rest is all false and stupid leads to a discussion between the different interpretations. Not sure if I want to go there. But, I may buy the book out of curiousity nonetheless.