Wave analysis - page 29
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Crises do not happen in a 17-year cycle, but in two cycles with constant period changes...
8-9-10 is the first wave of crisis, 16-18-20 is the second wave of the cycle when two waves overlap each other.
>> go blow your brains out with numerology on some other forum.
With your permission, I will join the conversation. If you are interested, take a look at the picture. Red - waves of M15 level. Blue - waves of H1 level. Yellow - waves of the H4 level. Who is not lazy - calculate the number of waves of the M15 level in the H1 wave, and so on. The mark-up is done manually, according to the indicators, showing the supposed beginning and end points of the wave structures at any time frame. I think you can see that the wave structure of ONE level has very little in common with the VA according to Elliot. But in combination and with a few (ha-ha) assumptions, it corresponds quite well.1. You can tell right away if a pattern (movement) is impulsive or not.
2. it's easy to trade an impulse figure.
3. it's easy to trade if you can see the completion of the figure, taking into account the figure of the upper frame.
Neely gives a 100% formalization for a ZigZag breakdown.
In general, I don't deny waves and Neely. Basically, I don't care - "nothing personal - just business". The hallmark of the wavebuilders is posting screenshots on stories and bragging about how good the waves are and how cool it is. I do not deny it. But not a single wave expert has ever shown a decent trade on the real market. I know several pams that have traded on wave theory and were successfully traded out. Here is an example of one of them.
If you show a trade like the one in your screen.
Then I, and not only me, would be ready to read the great Neely, pray for you and this Neely, pray for wave analysis, learn from you for money, listen to your lectures for money, invest in your trade money, do the butterfly polka)) and many other interesting things - basically, anything you want. In the meantime, there is only verbal and "proving you're not an idiot" - in short, a struggle with windmills. It is not interesting or informative at all. Show us this kind of trading on the real and you will be proved right.
Crises do not happen in a 17-year cycle, but in two cycles with constant period changes...
8-9-10 is the first wave of crisis, 16-18-20 is the second wave of the cycle when the two waves overlap...
Comrade claimed 17. I see different information from you.
Well let's look for your 8-9-10 and 16-18-20 on the chart. Where are they there?
Comrade claimed 17. I see you have different information.
Well, let's look on the chart for your 8-9-10 and 16-18-20. Where are they?
If you want so, you can search...But I read about these two waves a couple of years ago, there were even charts of overlapping of these two waves. But the most interesting thing was that they continued to impose themselves on 2009 and 2012, about which then no one else trumpeted so much, but the most interesting thing, when it all started to come true ... but these two waves have one thing - the waves are not the complete structure of a clear multiple of a year, ie the periodicity of a non-integer component ...
But I had read about these two waves a couple of years ago, and there were even graphs of the overlaps between the two waves. Then I continued to chart the continuation of myself - and the interesting thing was that they were superimposed on the continuation of 2009 and 2012, about which then no one else was so much trumpeted, but the most interesting thing, when all began to come true ... but these two waves have one thing that the waves are not the complete structure of a clear multiple of a year, ie the periodicity is not an entire component ...
I wish you'd stop posing as an affronted innocence and demonstrate with facts what you are asserting. It's not difficult, take a picture, draw waves on it and show it to everybody. Not for me to show, for everyone to see.
This is the only way, otherwise it is a repetition of what has already been said many times - accusations of the wave-makers of ....... incompetence and incompetence.
I would like you to stop posturing in an outraged innocence and demonstrate with facts what you are claiming. It's not hard to take a picture, draw waves on it and show everyone. Not to show me, to show everyone.
It is the only way, otherwise it is a repetition of what has already been said many times - accusing wave-makers of ....... incompetence and incompetence.
I am not going to prove, unfortunately I have not kept that article in which calculations concerning two wave processes were shown... And concerning insulted innocence - it is for those who does not believe in cyclic markets, who constantly try to prove that such does not exist, let them check at first on facts, and then they will argue here...
I know of several pams that have traded on wave theory and have been successfully dumped. Here is an example of one of them.
On the chart you can clearly see how the trades were opened on the lantern, but no, the PAMM owner believes that he is working according to his "genius system".
I am not going to prove, unfortunately I have not saved the article in which the calculations about two wave processes were shown... And about insulted innocence - it is to those who do not believe in cyclic markets, who are constantly trying to prove that there is no such thing, let them first check the facts, and then they will argue here...
Your position is clear:
1. the article you linked to does not exist.
2. you do not want to prove the existence of 8-9-10 and 16-18-20 year cycles and most likely you simply cannot.
I argue that there are no cycles in 8-9-10 and 16-18-20 on the chart you have already cited and there can't be.
Here are my facts.
Your position is clear:
1. the article you are referring to does not exist.
2. you do not want to prove the existence of 8-9-10 and 16-18-20 year cycles, and most likely you simply cannot.
I argue that there are no cycles in 8-9-10 and 16-18-20 on the chart already cited, and there can't be.
Here are my facts.
The question is that you take only dry numbers from the Dow that cannot reflect this, maybe you reject Kondratieff cycles as well? If not, please find them in your figure...However you forget that you show a growing graph and not a cyclic one that allows you to understand where they are... To observe cyclical moments you have to rotate the Dow horizontally using linear regression and cycles will be visible...