بایگانی برچسب برای: حسین حیدرپور

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-81

Why are the drawings of wave patterns in Mastering Elliott Wave so different from all other books on Elliott Wave?

ANSWER:

A great question that I have no great answer to. The diagrams in MEW are representative of reality; most books on EW inexplicably display unrealistic examples of price action, giving the reader a false impression of real-world pattern development. This problem dates all the way back to R.N. Elliott’s original works. Clearly, it is easier to show impulse patterns as one idealized formation rather than display three separate phenomenon (with at least two variations each). But, unfortunately, taking that diagrammatical short-cut does not help the beginner make the leap from student to practiioner.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-80

You don’t mention Fibonacci relationships much in your updates. What use or benefit does Fibonacci have in NEoWave?

ANSWER:

The usefulness and reliability of Fibonacci relationships, as they relate to proper wave counting, is widely misunderstood and greatly exaggerated. This may, in part, be due to the computer revolution since computers can calculate Fibonacci relationships so easily on a chart that their usefulness has been diminished. 

To begin, the greatest fallacy regarding Fibonacci relationships is that they should be applied to the corrections following waves-1 and 3 and waves-a (plus wave-c in a Triangle). Fibonacci relationships are NOT reliable when applied to waves going in opposite directions, but ONLY reliable when applied to waves of the same pattern going in the same direction. You might want to read that sentence again to let it sink in. 

In large, complex corrective environments (which the S&P has been in the last 7 years), Fibonacci relationships will be less reliable since structure is less reliable. Also, in general, Fibonacci relationships are more useful in impulsions and less useful in corrections. 

As they relate to NEoWave, I use Fibonacci relationships as a way of determining the minimum and maximum potential of a move, but not the exact length of a current or future wave. For example, in a Flat, I would not allow wave-c to be less then 38.2% and not more than 261.8% of wave-a. In an implusion, I would not allow wave-5 to be less than 38.2%, and not more than 261.8%, of the next largest wave (either 1 o 3).

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-79

What is the importance of channeling and how do you use it?

ANSWER:

In my opinion, channeling is misunderstood and is mistakenly used as a predictor of future price action. The reality is that channeling is much more effective in identifying turning points than in predicting future market action. 

As part of NEoWave theory, channeling is best used to identify the conclusion points of waves-2, 4, b and d. It is virtually useless in identifying the conclusion of waves-1, 3, 5, a, c or e. Discussed in detail on page 5-9 of Mastering Elliott Wave (MEW), the most important use for channeling is in identifying the conclusion of wave-2 of an impulsive pattern. As shown at the top of page 5-10, if what you mark as a “0-2” trendline is broken soon afterward, the “0-2” trendline must be adjusted and shifted to the right, concluding wave-2 later. If after that second point, the market does not rally at least 61.8% of wave-1, and the channel is broken again, wave-2’s conclusion must again be shifted into the future. 

Under orthodox Elliott Wave, most people call this a series of 1-2’s of decreasing degree, but logic (and future behavior) nearly always forces the person who attempts this process to change their count later, which means the assumption was wrong from the start. 

If you want your counts to be correct both in current time and into the future, you must make sure there is a clean line from the start of wave-1 to the end of wave-2 OR that wave-2 finishes after (and higher) than the last touch point created by the “0-2” trendline.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-78

In MEW you say the thurst out of a Running, Contracting Triangle can be up to 261.8% of the largest leg of the Triangle. Is this a strict rule or just a guideline?

ANSWER:

This question was sent in by Ahmad Pesnani (location unknown); it addresses on of the few sections of MEW that I feel needs revision. 

It has been nearly 20 years since I wrote MEW. The additional years of experience since indicate a 261.8% thrust can ONLY occur after a non-Limiting Triangle, not a b-wave or 4th wave Triangle. You should limit thrusts out of b-wave and 4th wave Triangles to a maximum near 161.8% of the largest wave of the Triangle. 

The above statements should be considered important “must follow” rules, not just guidelines.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-77

Referring to Fig. 8-25 of Mastering Elliott Wave, “is it possible that wave X could retrace into wave A and still hold the pattern implications?”

ANSWER:

Sent in by James of Germantown, MD, you will need a copy of Mastering Elliott Wave to get the full gist of this question. 

The answer is YES, but you want to make sure wave-x is not retraced more than 61.8% of the first a-b-c pattern. X-waves should never retrace more than 61.8% of any zigzag. If they do, something other than an x-wave is unfolding.

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-76

Could you briefly explain what is meant by ‘river theory’?

ANSWER:

This question was sent in by David Lai – a great customer in New South Wales, Australia. Since I have been incorporating Neely River technology in my NEoWave Trading updates for nearly 2 years, it’s time I explain this revolutionary concept. 

If you have subscribed to the NEoWave Trading service for a long-time, you’ve noticed my trading style has transformed the last 2 years. For the first 20 years of my career, all NEoWave (and old WaveWatch) services focused on “predicting” markets using wave theory. Because of the detail I attempted to achieve with my forecasts, the process might consume as much as 12 hours of my then 15-20 hour work day. If structure was clear, the second step of the process involved designing a trading strategy that took into account all possible preferred and alternate scenarios. If a position was warranted and activated, the third step involved managing that trade using stop-loss orders and profit objectives based on my presumptions of wave structure and the outlook which it implied. While on rare occasions that approach worked spectacularly well (such as the 2000 – 20002 period in the S&P), it left much to be desired at least 50% of the time. 

After pursuing the universally accepted 3-step process (Forecasting, Entering, Managing) for nearly 20 years, 7 years ago I began to question its validity. Why? Even though my forecasting abilities over the prior 20 years had improved several orders of magnitude, improvements in my trading were only incremental. That perplexed me for two decades and was extremely frustrating. How could my forecasting improve so much and my trading so little…what was I missing?

It eventually dawned on me that each step of the traditional 3-pronged process (Forecasting, Entering, Managing) was plagued with problems. First, even if you are good at forecasting, you probably won’t be right more than about 50% of the time. Next, even if you are right about the direction of the market, your entry price may be too high or too low, preventing the trade or reducing future profit potential. Even if your entry was great, your stop placement may be too close or your exit too early. If you give each step of this process a 50% rate of success (probably too high), by the time you reach the end you will achieve (at best) a 12.5% success rate. Is there any wonder trading is so difficult for most?

From the first book I ever read on trading (“The Commodities Futures Game”) to every financial magazine since, along with every newscast I have ever watched or commentator I have ever heard on TV, the foundation of all those presentations stems from one belief – FORECASTING is the key to successful trading. 

Like virtually every one, for 20 years, I believed the myth. Right after the 2000 stock market high, I knew (based on wave structure) the S&P was entering a 15-20+ year consolidation. Based on NEoWave concepts in Mastering Elliott Wave, I knew this meant wave structure would become extremely complex and difficult to interpret for possibly the next 20 years. Not a great environment for trading IF your foundation is a forecasting paradigm. 

With that knowledge in hand, in 2000 I began searching for a non-forecasting approach to trading and investing based on the same logical and objective approach that has made NEoWave famous. After 7 years of research, training, trading and programming, a highly evolved “trading science” has emerged, which I call NEELY RIVER THEORY. 

In essence, Neely River theory compares the seemingly random action of traders in a market to that of the behavior of fish in a river. No mathematical formula can tell us exactly where a specific fish will be in a river at any one time, BUT there are things you can predict about the general behavior of all fish in the river. 

1. Fish do not determine the flow of the river.

2. Independent of personal action, tracking the movement of all fish will show the net result is they move down stream over time. 

3. The majority of fish remain within the channel created by the north and south banks of the river.

4. Fish will move the fastest when swimming downstream and in the middle of the river. 

5. Near the perimeter of the river, fish get caught in turbulence and whirlpools that will effect their orientation and hinder their progress to the ocean. 

6. Fish do not need to make forecasts about the flow of the river or the distance to the ocean to eventually reach that target. 

In the same way, you can say the following about traders.

1. Traders do not determine the flow of a larger-degree trend.

2. Independent of personal action, tracking the movement of all traders will show the net result (prices) move “down stream” (i.e., in sync with the larger trend). 

3. Trading activity is “confined” by north and south channels imposed by a larger time frame.

4. Traders will make the most money the fastest in the middle of a channel when in sync with the larger trend. 

5. Near the perimeter of a market’s channel, traders get caught in turbulence that effects their orientation (i.e., it produces uncertainty about future direction) and hinders their progress (i.e., their ability to produce consistent profits). 

6. Traders do not need to make forecasts about the trend of a market or the distance to a future target to eventually achieve profits. 

Using the river analogy as a guide, over the last 7 years I’ve developed logical, objective trading strategies that allow traders to reach their goal of profitable trading without attempting to forecast the direction or extent of a market’s move. 

Though the above statements will no doubt be considered controversial and debated by many, I expect the foundation and technology of Neely River theory will create a revolution in the field of trading and investing.