## Sunday, March 22, 2009

### Elliott Thumbnail

Ok, bottom line up top: I don't think wave 5 is over yet.

The first complete wave is often a great model for unfolding waves of the next higher degree. It isn't rocket science or magic, it is a simple truth of statical sampling: small sample sizes can be used to predict the behavior of larger populations. Whether it is a voter sample or a focus group, experience shows that testing the programming of a smaller group has meaning when applied to the entire population. That is Elliott Wave in a nutshell.

That said, I broke away from the wave 1 sample of behavior when I forecast Dow 6,500 as an initial estimate for a minimum wave 5 plunge. Why? Because I felt wave 1's truncated 5th was an anomaly. In other words, as a small scale statistical sample, it was indicating something that did not fit with a much larger body of evidence, which is, that wave 5 usually matches wave 1 in scale and scope, after wave 3 extends. So the greater probability was with the larger body of experience, not the small sample that sat it front of our eyes.

Now, we are faced with a similar issue. Is the larger degree 5th wave over, after only 3 divisions and a rather smallish scale? Or, is it just developing normally? My take is that it is plain old normal. It shouldn't stress anyone out that even if we pick a four leaf clover in our first small sample, we need not find a field of four leaf clovers in the next larger sample.

Second thing:

As Elliott patterns grow over time, they scale up, most often in accordance with strong Fibonacci relationships. The reason is not obvious. This is hard to explain, but the basic wave pattern, at the human level, isn't what changes. One human will always do pretty much the same thing. The thing that makes prices patterns scale up, so that, say, a wave pushes 1.618 times farther than a previous wave, is actually the growing number of participants.

Fibonacci ratios describe how groups scale up and down, that is why they apply to so many building blocks in nature:

(0 + 1 = 1) shows what happens when somebody appears with a good idea, they can push as hard as they can push, so the outcome is 1, infinitely larger than the previous outcome of nothing.

(1 + 1 = 2) shows what happens when two people join forces. The outcome is simply double 1.

(1 + 2 = 3) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.5 times the previous outcome.

(2 + 3 = 5) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.6 times the previous outcome.

(2 + 3 = 5) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.67 times the previous outcome.

(3 + 5 = 8) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.6 times the previous outcome.

(5 + 8 = 13) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.625 times the previous outcome.

(8 + 13 = 21) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.615 times the previous outcome.

(13 + 21 = 34) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.619 times the previous outcome.

...and so on, until we form nature's irrational number and golden ratio, Phi, or:

1.6180339887498948482045868343656381177...and so on...

Ok, so what?

So my point is, are more or less people aware of the depression now than suspected it in Oct 2007? I'm going to go out on a limb and say... ...more?

If true, wave 5 should be very inclined to scale up, and scale up properly. Nature tells us that when wave 3 extends (lots of like-minded participants), wave 5 typically scales to match wave 1. This is a guideline, not a rule.

Does the general scale of wave 5 match wave 1? I say no, in my opinion, wave 5 is not finished developing.

The first complete wave is often a great model for unfolding waves of the next higher degree. It isn't rocket science or magic, it is a simple truth of statical sampling: small sample sizes can be used to predict the behavior of larger populations. Whether it is a voter sample or a focus group, experience shows that testing the programming of a smaller group has meaning when applied to the entire population. That is Elliott Wave in a nutshell.

That said, I broke away from the wave 1 sample of behavior when I forecast Dow 6,500 as an initial estimate for a minimum wave 5 plunge. Why? Because I felt wave 1's truncated 5th was an anomaly. In other words, as a small scale statistical sample, it was indicating something that did not fit with a much larger body of evidence, which is, that wave 5 usually matches wave 1 in scale and scope, after wave 3 extends. So the greater probability was with the larger body of experience, not the small sample that sat it front of our eyes.

Now, we are faced with a similar issue. Is the larger degree 5th wave over, after only 3 divisions and a rather smallish scale? Or, is it just developing normally? My take is that it is plain old normal. It shouldn't stress anyone out that even if we pick a four leaf clover in our first small sample, we need not find a field of four leaf clovers in the next larger sample.

Second thing:

As Elliott patterns grow over time, they scale up, most often in accordance with strong Fibonacci relationships. The reason is not obvious. This is hard to explain, but the basic wave pattern, at the human level, isn't what changes. One human will always do pretty much the same thing. The thing that makes prices patterns scale up, so that, say, a wave pushes 1.618 times farther than a previous wave, is actually the growing number of participants.

Fibonacci ratios describe how groups scale up and down, that is why they apply to so many building blocks in nature:

(0 + 1 = 1) shows what happens when somebody appears with a good idea, they can push as hard as they can push, so the outcome is 1, infinitely larger than the previous outcome of nothing.

(1 + 1 = 2) shows what happens when two people join forces. The outcome is simply double 1.

(1 + 2 = 3) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.5 times the previous outcome.

(2 + 3 = 5) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.6 times the previous outcome.

(2 + 3 = 5) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.67 times the previous outcome.

(3 + 5 = 8) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.6 times the previous outcome.

(5 + 8 = 13) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.625 times the previous outcome.

(8 + 13 = 21) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.615 times the previous outcome.

(13 + 21 = 34) shows what happens when the new group joins the previous unit of significance. The outcome is 1.619 times the previous outcome.

...and so on, until we form nature's irrational number and golden ratio, Phi, or:

1.6180339887498948482045868343656381177...and so on...

Ok, so what?

So my point is, are more or less people aware of the depression now than suspected it in Oct 2007? I'm going to go out on a limb and say... ...more?

If true, wave 5 should be very inclined to scale up, and scale up properly. Nature tells us that when wave 3 extends (lots of like-minded participants), wave 5 typically scales to match wave 1. This is a guideline, not a rule.

Does the general scale of wave 5 match wave 1? I say no, in my opinion, wave 5 is not finished developing.

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

Yes, but doesn't EW also say it is very unlikely that 5 will extend since 3 already has?

ReplyDeleteFDRA,

ReplyDeleteJust a quick question, isn't the green box (scale) on Wave 1 green a little bigger than what it should?

It looks like it is stretched to cover almost all the Wave 2 up green.

Just wondering whether this is done by desing??

Thanks a lot for this thumbnail!!!

"Yes, but doesn't EW also say it is very unlikely that 5 will extend since 3 already has?"

ReplyDeleteYes, but we aren't talking about price targets. Yet.

Never mind.

ReplyDeletePlease ignore my comment. I seems like the first chart showing what I commented on has been removed.

"Just a quick question, isn't the green box (scale) on Wave 1 green a little bigger than what it should? "

ReplyDeleteYes I was fixing it as you were typing your question. Thanks.

OutAndIn here:

ReplyDeleteElliot Wave is great and all, but if you think for a second that Elliot came up with a formula to "predict" future perfomance of markets than you are confused. If you think that Elliot found a way to "predict" human behavior than you will get burned.

The fact is this:

Elliot can't predict human reaction, and nothing can predict human reaction.

Humans are not cattle. We are unique and are vulnerable to fear and greed. There is nothing that can "forecast" the future

If you think you can, you will lose everything.

Well I would argue that the simple fact that we are vulnerable to fear and greed means we're not unique but predictable.

ReplyDeletedang, we are cattle for sure. Yes, we can predict human behavior.

ReplyDeleteFDR,

ReplyDeleteWould you explain why you use INDU rather than SPX for your Elliott thumbnail? Thanks!

Only because it is more widely reported. I look at most major indexes and try to discuss them when there is any disconnect. Usually there isn't.

ReplyDeleteThe best example is my conclusion that the market topped in 2000, not 2007. In EW terms, that means this bear is a first order C wave, not A wave. Only the Dow's B extended above its orthodox top in 2000, which is pretty normal, but 2007 would be tougher to label as a B peak without a broader view.

To those who say that one cannot predict future market behavior, and people are vulnerable to fear, I think you should consider the FACT that markets discount news. That is, whatever is reported is delayed from what has already transpired. Therefore markets don't move on news. Look at the ridiculous headlines that writers come up with when they want to make it seem as if markets move on news.

ReplyDeleteExample from today:

AP- "Stocks Cheer Treasury Plan for bad banks""

Since when did stocks cheer?

Wilsondidit