17 replies to this topic

[fib_1618]

So Basically,... dismissing it as anything relative or serious !

If that's all you got out of my response, then you didn't read or understand it.

I addressed the condition you described in my response, so I didn't dismiss it.

This condition is only relative to the context in which one may look at the markets. For you, you might get something to trade on for the next couple of days, but for others who may trade with a longer term horizon, it's just a pause to refresh.

This same "non participation" has been going on, in one degree or the other, since the 2002 lows. I fully expect the outcome of this current "inconsistency" to have the same outcome as the others have had over this same time period.

Nothing more...nothing less.

Your welcome.

Fib

[Mr Dev]

This same "non participation" has been going on, in one degree or the other, since the 2002 lows

Huh are you kidding me?

Ok if you don't want to address the RUT situation directly then I understand.

Thanks for trying.

Edited by Mr Dev, 17 May 2007 - 12:12 PM.

[Insider]

Show me one chart from Ralph Nelson Elliott (original) that shows oscillators!

Elliott didn't have the advantage of modern technical analysis as most of today's tools were invented after 1960.

Fib

What advantage?

Elliott Wave is a theory based on price action and human behaviour

Zoran Gayer (May God bless his soul) did not use indicators.

Insider

Edited by Insider, 17 May 2007 - 12:19 PM.

[fib_1618]

Zoran Gayer (May God bless his soul) did not use indicators.

And Zoran was consistently incorrect. And, yes, he and I had many discussions on this before his passing.

The advantages of using oscillators are many otherwise Elliottician's, such as Teaparty, wouldn't be using them when they post their counts. So you might want to ask what you may be missing instead of being poignant in your replies.

Fib

[Insider]

Zoran Gayer (May God bless his soul) did not use indicators.

And Zoran was consistently incorrect. And, yes, he and I had many discussions on this before his passing.

The advantages of using oscillators are many otherwise Elliottician's, such as Teaparty, wouldn't be using them when they post their counts. So you might want to ask what you may be missing instead of being poignant in your replies.

Fib

My point and his point is that Elliott Wave Counts don't need the confirmation or support of any l a g g i n g indicators

ADVANCED GET .....is one of those tricky softwares

Insider

[fib_1618]

Ok if you don't want to address the RUT situation directly then I understand.

Amazing.

If you wish to make it a bigger deal of it than it is, go ahead...we're still going to make higher highs over the intermediate term in spite of what you believe is really going on.

My point and his point is that Elliott Wave Counts don't need the confirmation or support of any l a g g i n g indicators

Lagging? The MACD and RSI are not lagging indicators. And Zoran's problem was that he used his own bias in labeling his data, and you can't do that with Elliott analysis - you have to be market neutral - and by his own admission, he had a bearish bias in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.

And, yes, Elliott Wave counts very much need support by technical confirmation to be valid...and that's from Ralph himself.

Fib

[Insider]

Ok if you don't want to address the RUT situation directly then I understand.

Amazing.

If you wish to make it a bigger deal of it than it is, go ahead...we're still going to make higher highs over the intermediate term in spite of what you believe is really going on.

My point and his point is that Elliott Wave Counts don't need the confirmation or support of any l a g g i n g indicators

Lagging? The MACD and RSI are not lagging indicators. And Zoran's problem was that he used his own bias in labeling his data, and you can't do that with Elliott analysis - you have to be market neutral - and by his own admission, he had a bearish bias in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary.

And, yes, Elliott Wave counts very much need support by technical confirmation to be valid...and that's from Ralph himself.
Fib

??????

Insider


Ps.: just curious....can you post some links about your bias during the Nasdaq crash years?

and what do you think RIGHT NOW about chinese stock market parabolic run?

TIA

Edited by Insider, 17 May 2007 - 02:56 PM.

[fib_1618]

Elliott Wave counts very much need support by technical confirmation to be valid...and that's from Ralph himself.

??????

Yes, there are several articles and essays from Elliott himself that are available if you wish to take the time to review them. You might find them over at Amazon, but if they're not there, I'm sure EWI has access to them.

Ps.: jushttp://www.traders-talk.com/mb2/style_images/2/folder_rte_images/underline.gif
Underlinet curious....can you post some links about your bias during the Nasdaq crash years?

Unfortunately, I can't because at that time (from 1998 to 2001) I was a participant of the now defunct Elliott Wave chat forum and the archives are gone. However, there are some members of this community that will attest to my being on the "right side of things" all during that period. For example, on April 18, 2000, I still remember the NASDAQ breadth MCSUM giving a downside price objective of 2700 at a time in which everyone else was foaming at the mouth and, yes, the bulls dismissed it as fantasy just like the bears have been doing for the last 4 years about the uptrend.

and what do you think RIGHT NOW about Chinese stock market parabolic run?

Well, I guess you have to determine if the price run has the economic foundation for it do so - or - if it's just a small amount of people moving the market because of a lack of participation. So far, with a double digit GDP, and it being a teenager when it comes to capitalism, the valuations might indeed be valid. Does it need a correction? That would make good common sense. But will it correct? That's a whole different ballgame altogether, and for that, I have no answer since I don't have any breadth statistics to work with to make that determination. But if we use the global market indices as a guide, it would seem to me that even if you do see a 5 or 10% pullback, you're more than likely going to see at least one more new high before it's all said and done based on simple momentum considerations.

Anyway, when the equity markets start looking vulnerable, you can bet I will be one of the first ones to share this kind of information well before anyone will notice it...just like I did earlier in this thread in my original response to Mr. Dev.

Fib