About profound advice like "follow the price!" - page 7
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
Sorry the DE section is the only one on the graph, why else would the model name be there, you just can't go wrong. So that's what I don't understand about the correction section, so you would expect a three-wave, but you were planning a five-wave.
We are talking about different things. I have many charts on the forum with predictions, and it was in my head, many, not this particular chart, but whatever you want to call it, I don't care. What I planned is laid out on the chart, what should have been expected, ask D.Wozny not me, he does the explaining on his website and I don't feel like it.
We are talking about different things. I have many charts on the forum with predictions, and it was in my head, many, not this particular chart, but whatever you want to call it, I don't care. What I have planned is laid out on the chart, what should have been expected, ask D.Wozny not me, he does the explaining on his website and I don't feel like it.
And I thought you were an expert on waves and thought it was easy for you to explain such a simple question without resorting to outside authorities.
I remember Vysotsky. When asked what he wanted to express in this or that song, he would usually say: the song says it all, I can't add anything.
You answer in approximately the same way. Your wave analysis is like a song that not everyone understands:)))
Yuri, it's a wavemaker's job to make mistakes and rework scenarios. Incidentally, an erroneous scenario does not necessarily lead to losses.
Even Prechter & Co. make mistakes, and there is no tragedy in that.
And I thought that you are an expert on waves and thought that it is easy to explain such a simple question to you without resorting to external authorities:)))
The question, consists of one, two lines. The answer, significantly, again, significantly more lines. That's the reason.
If the question is simple, it is logical to assume that you have studied it and you know the answer.
The question consists of one, two lines. The answer is much, again, much more than one line. That is the reason.
If the question is a simple one, it is logical to assume that you have studied it, and that you know the answer.
What I don't understand is why a five-wave correction is planned. Apparently this question is really hard to answer:)))
Don't have a clue about EWA - stay out of it. ZetM did not say anything about 5-wave as a full correction. If you think the zigzag is a 5 wavelength, that's your problem...
Yuri, it's a wavemaker's job to make mistakes and rework scenarios. Incidentally, an erroneous scenario does not necessarily lead to losses.
Even Prechter & Co. make mistakes, and there is no tragedy in that.
You yourself are a WOLLOWER, and you know very well that there are no erroneous scenarios in Wave Analysis, all of them, going in sync, are divided into two groups DOWN and UP.
Excuse me, just one example, of Prechter & Co's prediction errors.
This one, Yuri?
Technically, yes, it's a five-wave pattern, but it's not an impulse pattern, it's a corrective one. It is a tapering triangle, a typical corrective pattern with a 3-3-3-3-3 structure. It is usually followed by an impulse towards the impulse of a larger wave pattern.
2 ZetM: I must have forgotten something. Prechter is, of course, the most powerful authority in the analysis of the current situation.
Concerning his mistakes: I remember him long and persistently saying that a horrible break-down of the US stock market was imminent. It did happen (2007), but not when Prechter was talking about it. He had been talking about it for years before that.
See the graph on the previous page. Isn't the trajectory 5 - A, A - B, B - C, C - D, D - E a five wave trajectory?
Don't confuse the model, within the model, with a full 3-wave correction, a significant difference.