Menu
Search
Sister Sites

Options

Search
Search
Search

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Printable Version

Similar Threads

Neely's NeoWave on €$, DXY, DAX & Bund: analysis & trades 190 replies

FX5 Neely Elliott Wave Indicator 0 replies

Neely River Theory indicators/EA 2 replies

USDCAD 900 pips / elliot wave - glenn neely 1 reply

Attachments: Neowave and Glenn Neely
Exit Attachments

Neowave and Glenn Neely

@ Sareika

i attached " Mono Wave " indicator in MT4.

it's working well. thank u for teach me yaar ...

I have a query about " Intraday Strategy " for Forex..

Which strategy u r following in forex trade...

Could u tell me.....
Quoting seenuvas86
@ Sareika

i attached " Mono Wave " indicator in MT4.

it's working well. thank u for teach me yaar ...

I have a query about " Intraday Strategy " for Forex..

Which strategy u r following in forex trade...

Could u tell me.....
i dont have any strategy for entries or exits i just follow the price and try to search for known Elliott patterns. if i see some of them are unfolding i simply try to find out which way it (the price) should go. I dont use any indicators to track possible entry or exit points
EWI: Best way to master it is to teach it
hi every one
if eny one interesr in trade with neely method we can exchange our knowlge

my mail
ihab_afia76@yahoo.com
thanks
Aspect 2 of the rule of neutrality breaks a single wave into 3 individual waves.

The funny thing is, one you come to apply the rules of observation; when m1 is the middle wave of 3 waves made by aspect 2 of the neutrality rule, the waves touching it (m0 and m2) do not retrace m1 at all, since they have the same direction as m1.

What do you do in this situation? Just treat all three waves as a single monowave?

Man this is awkward
I've started to read "Elliot Wave Principle" by Rob Pretcher to try and get a simpler view of Elliot Wave theory whilst still trying to cod my own neowave indicator.

I also asked the above question on Neely's website (Neowave.com) but didn't get a response. I think there's a very high porbability that he gets far too many questions to answer all of them but only answering one a week seems a bit mean.

I still have no idea wether you break the wave m1 into three waves whilst applying the pre-constructive rules of logic, if anyone does know please inform me.

The structure of the sentences in the book can be rather odd at times, and I have some other questions. Of course if there is anything I have learnt that I can share with you I will be more than happy to.

These are my notes from today:

I belive that there is an error in the "Mastering Elliott Wave" book. On page 3-34, my understanding is that the "true" and "false" statements should be reversed, as m2 should actually be equal to or larger than m1 for the statement to be true.

Also, on pages 3-35 to 3-59, am i right in thinking that each paragraph shows an exclusive condition?
For example; The 2nd,3rd and 4th paragraphs on page 3-35 do not depend on the statements in the first paragraph being true?

Are statements within paragraphs in this section exclusive or dependant on one another? i.e. is the placing of the ":s5" in the 1st paragraph of page 3-35 dependant on the conditions for the initial ":5" being true?
Thanks for your time and I'd love to discuss this stuff on messenger as people have suggested in the forum already. Perhaps we should arrange a time to do so
On page 3-35, for the first rule of Observation, the statement in the 3rd parapraph:

"add '[:c3]' after the ':5'" already at the end of m1 makes no sense.

The conditions in the first sentence of this paragraph do not match the conditions that the time span of m2 is greater than or equal to that of m3 or m1, which is the condition needed for a ':5' to already be in place (rule 1, para 1).

Anyone worked this out or is this thread dead now?
Quoting quibowibbler
On page 3-35, for the first rule of Observation, the statement in the 3rd parapraph:

"add '[:c3]' after the ':5'" already at the end of m1 makes no sense.

The conditions in the first sentence of this paragraph do not match the conditions that the time span of m2 is greater than or equal to that of m3 or m1, which is the condition needed for a ':5' to already be in place (rule 1, para 1).

Anyone worked this out or is this thread dead now?
So what's the problem?
Hello!

On one website I've met a "M3" structure label, but in his book Neely didn't mention about this label. Do you know something about it?

Thank you for responses.
  • Post #129
  • Quote
  • Edited at 3:50pm Jan 6, 2010 1:17pm | Edited at 3:50pm
Quoting Danelle
Hello!

On one website I've met a "M3" structure label, but in his book Neely didn't mention about this label. Do you know something about it?

Thank you for responses.

What you mean M3? There is no M3 structure label in NEoWave. Maybe it was misspelling. There are only labels

:5 :3 :c3 x:c3 :F3 :L5 :s5 :sL3 :L3
I've got some pages from Neely's mailing. At first sight I thought that is misspelling. But it repeats several times in different context. But as you I have never read about this structure label in his Neowave book. So, I've decided to ask you about it.
Quoting Danelle
I've got some pages from Neely's mailing. At first sight I thought that is misspelling. But it repeats several times in different context. But as you I have never read about this structure label in his Neowave book. So, I've decided to ask you about it.
What mailing? I have forecast and trading subscription, but i never seen M3 struct label. And Neely do not use struct labels as itself. Neely uses WAVE labels (1-2-3.., a-b-c.., etc) both in his forecasting and trading service. If you have mail with Neely's M3 struct - send me, and i will ask him.
hi
anybody read Glenn's S&P update from yesterday?

In regard to the neutral triangle that is still possible:

if the percent price change is decisive, the S&P could even rally to 1222 (low wave E + 30%) and still be shorter than wave C
right?

only time is running out, i know that

Till
Quoting smjones
Yes, Glenn's work is very complex to say the least.
Subjectivity in Elliot wave has always been a problem for me to get my
head around. Just like anything else that is complex, this requires one to
build their knowledge base slowly and completely before advancing to the
next level. I have been very impressed with the approach so far. It is
daunting, but it seems to be worth the effort. This is coming from a
a person who does not have a lot of faith in Elliot Wave. I will come back
and report again in a year after I understand it completely....
[Note: That post was from December 2006 but that bears nothing
in regards to the poster, but the subject matter - Cyclon]

Quoting Big Wave Rider
Is there a book called Neely made simple? or Neowave for dummys?
Actually I believe I may want to retitle my new book
after seeing that post. LOL

Any ways whatever you want to call it you can get it here on FF:

http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?t=213760

If you go through this thread you will see why it is so badly needed.
All that stuff is great if you can do it but the New Elliott Wave Rule
makes it unnecessary. You will be pleasantly surprised.

Cheers,
Cyclon
Quoting ph3onix
What mailing? I have forecast and trading subscription, but i never seen M3 struct label. And Neely do not use struct labels as itself. Neely uses WAVE labels (1-2-3.., a-b-c.., etc) both in his forecasting and trading service. If you have mail with Neely's M3 struct - send me, and i will ask him.
We have found some scan pages of his lessons in the Internet and there are some pages where M3 is used. I think if you don't know anything about M3 structure, it's misspelling. Thank you again for your help.
Quoting Danelle
We have found some scan pages of his lessons in the Internet and there are some pages where M3 is used. I think if you don't know anything about M3 structure, it's misspelling. Thank you again for your help.
Well, it seems you're trying to understand M3 as struct label, while it's just Monowave 3 from current (M1) monowave which is hidden, on his chart It seems Glenn does not have struct label yet for M3, but it's marked for usability Anyway, answer on your main question - there is NO M3 STRUCT label in NEoWave.
Quoting RemingtonTJ
hi
anybody read Glenn's S&P update from yesterday?

In regard to the neutral triangle that is still possible:

if the percent price change is decisive, the S&P could even rally to 1222 (low wave E + 30%) and still be shorter than wave C
right?

only time is running out, i know that

Till
There is no neutral triangle. There is an contracting triangle (monthly plot), so we are near to B-wave end. As you sad - it seems that B-wave ends about 1200 (B-wave ends), and then S&P will fall down to ~780 (C-wave ends). (in 3 months, trend is topping, then down).

If you're about neutral triangle in contracting triangle B-wave (daily, weekly plot?), that can be, because the property of the triangles is to be in B-waves.
Quoting ph3onix
There is no neutral triangle. There is an contracting triangle (monthly plot), so we are near to B-wave end. As you sad - it seems that B-wave ends about 1200 (B-wave ends), and then S&P will fall down to ~780 (C-wave ends). (in 3 months, trend is topping, then down).

If you're about neutral triangle in contracting triangle B-wave (daily, weekly plot?), that can be, because the property of the triangles is to be in B-waves.
what do you mean?
Glenn discusses the possibility for a neutral or expanding triangle now since weeks
Quoting RemingtonTJ
what do you mean?
Glenn discusses the possibility for a neutral or expanding triangle now since weeks
I'm about his forecasting. And in forecasting (Monthly Plot) He writes about Contracting (not neutral) triangle. So neutral triangle you're talking about, can be in smaller degrees.
Hi guys!

Does anybody know the Dynamic Trader software? You use swing waves there which are similar to monowaves but they are not the same. I wonder whether one can apply Glenns rules (Chapter 3) to these swing waves. I attached the DT and MT4 screenshots. Do you have any ideas? Thanks
Attached Images
File Type: bmp Fórum1 kicsi.bmp   280 KB | 1,108 download
File Type: bmp Fórum2 kicsi.bmp   445 KB | 735 downloads
Hi,

I've just started learning the Neely method, and I'm trying to work out how to implement it in MQL5, while also testing out the methods by "hand-drawing" the lines, etc on Metatrader.

However, I've come to a bit of a stumbling block. I'm working my way through chapter three - after reading it quickly and then reading more chapters, before coming back to try and implement chapter 3 - and I've been able to get the initial mono-waves plotted fine, but I'm unsure as what to do about the rules of proportionality and how to actually implement it.

Do I implement the ROP over the whole of the data that I'm working on, thus changing the scale to make this all fit within a square, but obeying the ROP, or do I slit the data up into different sections of directional action and non-directional action, and then change the scale for each of these so that they fit the ROP?

I think once I can get around this problem I should be able to implement the rest of the chapter (hopefully).

Thanks for any help,

Steven
http://cdn.forexfactory.com/images/misc/progress.gif
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

0 traders viewing now