3 replies to this topic

[tsharp]

after looking at the daily and weekly fractal structures, the EW/fractal count i posted on the 130-min chart yesterday looks less likely...

and it seems to me that the only way a more complex corrective count, similar to the one of yesterday's chart, could still be in play, would be if we're now rising in wave-d:d, which could take us to a nominal new high, but then would also take us back down to new lows, or truncate, in wave-e:d (expanding triangle: fourth wave stuph)... then back upward in what i feel would be the last thrust in this bull market cycle. the chart is shown with a truncation, but that would not be necessary, if the wave-e took enough time.



also be on the lookout for a diamond formation, which in this case i would think would be a bullish formation, but know that the bearz will be drooling at its presence...

the main reason for continuing to leave this kind of possibility on the table is because it seems that there still has not been enough time lapsed, to burn off overboughtness (is that a word?)... ggg

in the mean time, i've also relabeled the daily and weekly charts to reflect what seems to be two of the most probable fractal counts at this time. the daily leaves open the possibility that we're still moving upward in a wave-c:b, with a wave-c:d still remaining, but now with no need for new lows, but only a need to drop below the wave-a low of ~1174.



and the weekly assumes the wave-d low is already in, and we're now on our way back upward to wave-e:( c ):X... i guess i still lean more towards the possibility that wave-d is not yet complete in time, though it has met my price expectations from several weeks ago... twt.

--tsharp

[Mr Dev]

Thanks for sharing!

Tonight I was Looking at a LongerTerm Chart also,....but I didn't Like what I saw.

MrDev

[Regent]

I am not sure what m/a you are using for your chart, Mr. Dev. But if its the 200, then it can be clearly seen that during much of the rise in 2003 that the "gap" between the m/a and the Spx index was just as large.

[Mr Dev]

Regent You didn’t read my chart clearly or else u would of seen that your chart and my chart are two entirely different charts. Funny how much folks miss just reading a chart. First u need to compare apples to apples then you need a chart that can be viewed a little further back than 24 months without a microscpe,, ie I posted a chart all the way back to 97 that shows CLEAR lines not lil sqiggles Then to make a valid comparison you'll need proper MAs Your chart has none of the above,... and its the wrong chart.