Ok nearly there, taken about 10 days longer than I thought, but there were a few stubborn battles that took a bit longer than anticipated, but the end result should be the same albeit a tad late.
The point I wanted to make, (and have tried to make in other posts) is that there is a massive difference in trading based on knowledge/understanding (call it what you will) vs using abstract concepts (whichever ones they maybe).
So in this example the thread starter believed that Elliot waves would help him work out which way the market would go.
If he/she was proved correct, they would "believe" that it was the fact that they used Elliot theory to call the direction. Thus giving it validation.
If they were wrong, (as in this case), they will either say that the Elliot formation suddenly "disappeared", or that this was one of the times it "didn’t work".
In reality neither would be correct, as the markets simply do not work like that. In fact, this is a great example for newbies whom cling onto the hope that concepts like this can lead to the Holy Grail.
Now looking at the original chart at the start of the thread, and based on understanding market dynamics (which can be seen on a plain chart) it was quite clear (from a high probability POV, 85% plus) where we were heading, but it would be impossible to see/read the flow if you were wearing Elliot glasses.
In fairness we will more than likely go beyond 13800, but I will be happy with this level for the time being.
I am posting this in the hope that it may set off a few light bulbs and maybe inspire some people to open their minds to the possibility that there is another world out there beyond abstract concepts, and that if a market does not go in the direction you thought, then this can be used as a base to learn/develop from, rather than simply accepting it as part of our statistical results.
Of course there are a few on here that know this to be the case, but there are also a lot of members whom appear to be rigid and are not open to other possibilities, and just come here for the LULZ rather than contribute (anything worthwhile).
As always, many men, many methods, but some are a lot more powerful/effective than others. You choose.
This post will land on those that it is meant to. To others it will be a clear as Morse code “Riiiiiight”
There are so many problems associated with the supposedly EW analysis as presented by the original poster that somehow it is meaningful in calling a top that it warrants pointing out. It is such a misrepresentation of how EW is applied that it is discrediting the technique and other practioners.
I will cover some key problems :
There are three charts as presented - yearly, quarterly and weekly
The yearly chart is so far back dated (back to the 20's) and of such a wide time horizon, its applicability and relevancy is seriously questioned when one is trying to nail a top to days.
The quarterly chart has some labelling of EW count and if you notice the count in green, it shows wave III and wave I of approximate length. I am not even going to talk about whether the labelling is correct or not but just based on common EW knowledge, wave III is typically the longest. This means if you apply the labelling as done by the poster, the DOW has a long way to go before hitting a top as wave III is normally at least 168 % of wave I and in cases of extension, easily 200-268 %. In other words, the chart labelling itself does not support the conclusion that a top is anywhere being formed both in price and time.
The third chart which is weekly. This is the most important chart but surprisingly does not have any EW labelling on it. The only useful analysis I can pick up from this chart is a break of a trend line and a subsequent re-test of the underside and possibility a failure to justify calling a potential top. Since there is no EW labelling on this important chart, how did the poster made the big leap of faith in calling a top based on EW analysis is beyond me because there is no EW labelling to support such a conclusion.
The poster than goes on to justify divesting a portfolio based on the analysis of the DOW chart. This is to me analysing apples and then disposing oranges .... of which I will stop here.