بایگانی برچسب برای: نئو ویو

پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-21

(New Tips & Hints (21

What would be the best approach for confirming the end of wave-5?

ANSWER:

This question was sent in by Dr. Mircea Dologa of Nanterre, France. This NEoWave concept is discussed in great detail in Mastering Elliott Wave, Chapter 6 (Post-Constructive Rules of Logic). One of the crucial dividing points between Elliott Wave and NEoWave is that NEoWave requires specific, post-pattern behavior to confirm your analysis. If you (or someone you know) is constantly changing their wave counts, it is almost always because they are not applying the NEoWave Post-Constructive Rules of Logic to their analysis.

There are two stages of NEoWave pattern confirmation possible in impulsive patterns; the first is mandatory and occurs when price action returns to the 2-4 trendline in less time than wave-5 took to form. The second stage of pattern confirmation occurs when wave-5 is completely retraced in less time (or no more time) than wave-5 took to form. The second stage of pattern confirmation may not always occur, but if it doesn`t, it raises doubt wave-5 actually ended. If both stages of NEoWave confirmation are met, there is little doubt your analysis is correct. If the first stage of confirmation is not met, there is no doubt your analysis is incorrect.

/0 دیدگاه /توسط
پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-20

(New Tips & Hints (20

What are the minimum requirements for wave-C following a running B-wave correction?

ANSWER:

If wave-C is part of a Flat or Zigzag, wave-C should be at least 161.8% of the price of wave-b of the running correction (i.e., wave-b of wave-B), but will almost always be 161.8% of the price of wave-A. Pattern implications do not necessarily carry through from one wave to the next in Triangles, so if wave-C is part of a Triangle (any version), the “power” implied by the running B-wave correction may not be represented by wave-C. In that case, wave-C should still be at least 161.8% of the price of wave-b of wave-B. NEoWave TIMING concepts will apply to the time consumed by wave-C, which is based on how much time wave-B took in relation to wave-A (see earlier “Questions of the Week” for details).

/0 دیدگاه /توسط
پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-19

(New Tips & Hints (19

What alerts you to the non-impulsive nature of a group of waves that many would misinterpret as impulsive?

ANSWER:

This week`s question was posed by Paul Collaros of Gauteng, South Africa. First and foremost, if there is no price, time or complexity alternation between waves-2 and 4, what you are witnessing is a complex corrective rally or decline, not an impulsion.

Secondly, under NEoWave theory, one of the important characteristics of a true impulsive pattern is that it is difficult to channel. Some waves will touch the upper and lower trendlines and some will not. Therefore, if you can easily encase an entire advance or decline between parallel lines with each high and low touching one of the parallel lines, the pattern is corrective, not impulsive. This concept would apply even if the lines slightly expanded away from or contracted toward one another.

/0 دیدگاه /توسط
پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-18

(New Tips & Hints (18

Under NEoWave theory, what is more important – structure or behavior?

ANSWER:

This question strikes at the core of what differentiates NEoWave from Elliott Wave. Under othodox Elliott Wave, STRUCTURE is paramount (i.e., if an advance follows the rules of an impulsion, it is, independent of future price action). Under NEoWave theory, LOGIC is paramount (i.e., no matter what you think of structure, if post-pattern behavior is inconsistent with your labeling, your wave count is wrong). Put another way, under Elliott Wave the analyst decides what a market has done and is doing (don`t confuse me with the facts, I`ve made up my mind). Under NEoWave theory, no matter what you believe about past price action, future price behavior must confirm your assumptions, making post-pattern behavior the final arbiter of analytical accuracy. For example, if you see what you think is a perfectly designed impulsion making up wave-1 of a larger advance, but “wave-2” retraces 99% of wave-1, then the market is telling you your analysis is incorrect and you must change your labeling. Through this rigid post-pattern, verification process, NEoWave removes the subjectivity notoriously associated with Elliott Wave.

This week`s question arose when Milind Karandikar of Maharashtra, India discovered I had changed the structure of the 1995-2000 rally from corrective to impulsive with the release of last year`s, newly revised long-term stock market forecast. Origainlly, weekly and monthly charts suggested the 1995-2000 rally was corrective, but less detailed, yearly charts allowed room for interpretation. Ultimately, post-pattern price behavior (from 2000`s high to present) forced me to change my interpretation, labeling the advance as impulsive (i.e., wave-3 of a 5th extension impulsion).

/0 دیدگاه /توسط
پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-17

(New Tips & Hints (17

What`s the proof that a pattern ended at a certain point and at what time is NEoWave able to predict this?

ANSWER:

This two part question was raised by long-time subscriber Manfred Koeller of Hessen Germany. In Chapter 6 of Mastering Elliott Wave (MEW) I address the two stages of pattern confirmation, which answers the first part of his question. To elaborate, before the process of confirmation can be addressed, it is essential the formation you are attempting to confirm obeys all NEoWave and Elliott Wave rules. If that is the case, and you think an impulsion has ended, Stage 1 confirmation must be present, which occurs when the 2-4 trendline is violated in less time than wave-5 took to form. Stage 2 confirmation exists when wave-5 is completely retraced in less time than it took to form. If both stages of confirmation are met, and all wave development rules for an impulsion are present, then NEoWave theory has given you the “proof” you seek that your impulsive interpretation is correct. If the first stage of confirmation is met, but not the second, the impulsion is in question and must be confirmed by future price behavior.

Regarding the second part of your question, NEoWave theory creates the first, logical structure to market analysis, where the analyst does not “predict,” but rather observes and confirms, behavior events. As such, NEoWave is not able to predict (i.e., before the evidence is present) the confirmation or conclusion of a pattern, it can only confirm it shortly after the fact.

/0 دیدگاه /توسط
پرسش و پاسخ با گلن نیلی-16

(New Tips & Hints (16

In an impulsion, can wave-2 take less time than wave-1 and can wave-4 take less time than wave-3?

ANSWER:

The answer to both is “it depends on the type of impulsion forming.” In a Standard impulsion, where waves 2 and 4 do NOT overlap (i.e., they do not share any of the same price terriroty), wave-2 CANNOT take less time than wave-1 and wave-4 CANNOT take less time than wave-3. Keep in mind, the measuring of time consumed by waves-2 & 4 is from beginning to end, not from high to low. Part of wave-2 or wave-4 may exceed the high of the previous wave and may actually conclude above the top of the previous wave IF a Running correction is present.

On the other hand, in a Terminal impulsion, wave-2 IS allowed to take less time than wave-1 and usually does, plus wave-4 IS allowed to take less time than wave-3 and usually does. A NEoWave condition I call “extreme alternation” is also possible in Terminal patterns, which allows the time and price consumed by wave-2 to be much greater or far less than that consumed by wave-4 (a condition NOT allowed in Standard impulsions).

/0 دیدگاه /توسط