In this video I go through the process of developing an alternate Elliott wave count for Gold, using the MotiveWave analysis platform.

10 Comments

Lara
on July 12, 2017 at 4:28 pm

Awesome guys. When I come across a difficult analysis I’ll record the process.

It doesn’t happen every week, but it does happen ðŸ™‚

Melanie Wilson
on July 12, 2017 at 3:40 pm

Lara…wanted to mention one more thing when you can address it….I am having a little trouble understanding the rule…..’you cannot have multiples within multiples’.
1. I need a better definition/understanding of what that means and an example.
2. What is the correct count in its place and why.
3. As students learning, how can we better spot to use w-x-y rather than a-b-c. [For now, in between your reports, I ‘pencil’ it in temporarily if I can not figure out what else a corrective move is doing; and then adjust it when your report comes out….realizing that you can not ‘hit it out of the park’ all the time either.

Again…when you can…thank you…Melanie

Lara
on July 12, 2017 at 4:32 pm

When a correction won’t subdivide as a simple A-B-C then consider W-X-Y.

The maximum number of corrective structures in a multiple is three. So the maximum is W-X-Y-X-Z. With W, Y and Z being the three corrective structures that are counted as individuals within the multiple.

And so if we were to label any of W, Y or Z as multiples themselves, we would be increasing the maximum beyond three which would violate that EW rule.

So, for example, if we had W-X-Y-X-Z, and each of W, Y and Z themselves were labelled W-X-Y then within each of W, Y and Z there would be two corrective structures. The total number of corrective structures within the whole correction would be 2 X 3 = 6. Which is > 3 so the rule is violated.

Does this make sense?

Lara
on July 12, 2017 at 4:33 pm

So the only correct way to label multiples is within each of W, Y and Z they may only be labelled as single simple corrections. So they must have labelling of A-B-C, or in the case of a triangle within a multiple A-B-C-D-E.

Melanie Wilson
on July 13, 2017 at 12:09 pm

Lara…based on your explanations…let’s see if I am understanding via posing an example:

In your July 12 evening report, you show Minor 2 as possibly forming as a double zigzag counted as minute W-X-Y. If you were to label w-x-y within W rather than simple a-b-c patterns, the entire pattern, when one includes Y of Minor 2 would contain 4 multiples which breaks the EW rule.

Am I on the ‘right track’ of understanding this?

Thank you…Melanie

Am I understanding this

Lara
on July 13, 2017 at 3:33 pm

You have it exactly right.

Melanie Wilson
on July 12, 2017 at 1:09 pm

Lara…thank you. Your analysis is very useful. By showing a video of your process and expressing how and why you eliminate certain counts using elliott wave and tech analysis, it helps me better understand which guidelines/rules are acceptable/not acceptable in aiding you to form a higher probability count.

KYONG PARK
on July 12, 2017 at 8:15 am

Lara

The video is GREAT!! Please keep it up.

amjad abu tarboush
on July 12, 2017 at 3:29 am

Lara
Doing this analysis is intresting and benifits us in following the market
Thanks

brandon
on July 12, 2017 at 9:23 am

Thanks for the great learning tools you provide

This EWG website uses cookies to ensure members and visitors get the best experience. By continuing, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. - To learn more see TOS.

Awesome guys. When I come across a difficult analysis I’ll record the process.

It doesn’t happen every week, but it does happen ðŸ™‚

Lara…wanted to mention one more thing when you can address it….I am having a little trouble understanding the rule…..’you cannot have multiples within multiples’.

1. I need a better definition/understanding of what that means and an example.

2. What is the correct count in its place and why.

3. As students learning, how can we better spot to use w-x-y rather than a-b-c. [For now, in between your reports, I ‘pencil’ it in temporarily if I can not figure out what else a corrective move is doing; and then adjust it when your report comes out….realizing that you can not ‘hit it out of the park’ all the time either.

Again…when you can…thank you…Melanie

When a correction won’t subdivide as a simple A-B-C then consider W-X-Y.

The maximum number of corrective structures in a multiple is three. So the maximum is W-X-Y-X-Z. With W, Y and Z being the three corrective structures that are counted as individuals within the multiple.

And so if we were to label any of W, Y or Z as multiples themselves, we would be increasing the maximum beyond three which would violate that EW rule.

So, for example, if we had W-X-Y-X-Z, and each of W, Y and Z themselves were labelled W-X-Y then within each of W, Y and Z there would be two corrective structures. The total number of corrective structures within the whole correction would be 2 X 3 = 6. Which is > 3 so the rule is violated.

Does this make sense?

So the only correct way to label multiples is within each of W, Y and Z they may only be labelled as single simple corrections. So they must have labelling of A-B-C, or in the case of a triangle within a multiple A-B-C-D-E.

Lara…based on your explanations…let’s see if I am understanding via posing an example:

In your July 12 evening report, you show Minor 2 as possibly forming as a double zigzag counted as minute W-X-Y. If you were to label w-x-y within W rather than simple a-b-c patterns, the entire pattern, when one includes Y of Minor 2 would contain 4 multiples which breaks the EW rule.

Am I on the ‘right track’ of understanding this?

Thank you…Melanie

Am I understanding this

You have it exactly right.

Lara…thank you. Your analysis is very useful. By showing a video of your process and expressing how and why you eliminate certain counts using elliott wave and tech analysis, it helps me better understand which guidelines/rules are acceptable/not acceptable in aiding you to form a higher probability count.

Lara

The video is GREAT!! Please keep it up.

Lara

Doing this analysis is intresting and benifits us in following the market

Thanks

Thanks for the great learning tools you provide