ANSWER:

This is a very interesting question with many subtle, probably unintended, facets. First, suggesting NEoWave is in opposition to Elliott Wave is like saying calculus is in opposition to algebra. The one area in which there may exist opposition is in the conclusions of a NEoWave analyst compared to that of an orthodox Elliott Wave analyst. Your question also implies that if something is difficult, even if it is more accurate, it may not be worth learning. When it comes to the world of money and investing, isn’t increased precision and accuracy the whole point?

Most people have no personal, day-to-day need for calculus. In fact, most people’s attitude is like that of Mary Johnson (taken from the internet) who said, “My best day in Calc 101 at Southern Cal was the day I had to cut class to get a root canal.

Fortunately, for the rest of us, a very small number of people do love and understand calculus and know how to apply it to solve complex, real-world problems. Some simple applications of calculus include determining the surface area of a three dimensional object, the volume of a three dimensional object, water pressure at different depths, air pressure at different heights, and probabilities of complex events. All important questions when developing consumer products, cars, airplanes, forecasting the weather, etc. 

Even though you did not say it directly, I sense you are indirectly asking me “Is NEoWave worth learning – does the extra complexity pay off in the end?” and the answer to that question is “Absolutely”! In the near future I will prove my answer, much to the dismay of orthodox Elliott Wave analyst’s, when I release “NEOWAVE: A History of Success!” That presentation will show dozens of highly accurate market calls made by me over the last 25+ years – many at the time were contrary to those made by the orthodox Elliott Wave camp – which will prove the accuracy and superiority of NEoWave.