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

feel free to post charts of any market you want

DAX stock index
Daily

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4382/daxd0328.jpg

with today's rally we could have seen wave D circle of wave (E) in crude oil

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/3104/cl2750329.jpg

I know this might sound like a sale's pitch but it is not.

I have been following Neely since the late 80's (yes) and dumped Prechter a year after that and never looked back. Even when I fallowed Precther the only reason I did is I knew I could eliminate the possibility of all his "calls". He has never been right on anything yet people love a doom and gloomer so he is well followed.

Before someone tell me he forecasted the crash of 87, let me answer that a close friend of mine was at a week-end workshop with him, on that week-end following the "black Friday" and he was still not bearish.

Glenn doesn't care he has no bias or axe to grind. He has been the most consistent analyst I have ever seen in 20+ years. His only concern is being as accurate and clear as possible.

By definition a Terminal ends a pattern of at least one degree higher so wave (c) cannot be labeled a 5th terminal

you're right,
but that's the perfect textbook way of looking at EW
in my eyes that doesn't work (anymore)
but I'll check if a count without the terminal makes more sense
thx

absolutely

crude oil update
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/7194/cl2750331.jpg

crude oil daily
108 should be resistance
otherwise diametrics are forming

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/1769/cld0331.jpg

EURUSD
Weekly analysis

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/803/eurusdw0331.jpg

crude oil has behaved much more bullish than I thought:

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/36/cld0408.jpg

as of approaching to elliot.what is different in neelys methodology

theres good info in the questionofweek section on
www.neowave.com

EURUSD Weekly
in May end of exp triangle and bigger trend change
pot. target: 1,55 (1,61*A)
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/305/eurusdw0429.jpg

German DAX Monthly
in wave (A) of trible combination or wave (C) cyan of contracting triangle

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/333/daxm0429.jpg

EUR Bund Future
200 Min
http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6121/gbl2000429.jpg

link

http://www.tradesignalonline.com/for....aspx?id=27915

I've been a subscriber for some months to Glenn Neely's S&P 500 weekly forecast which uses the Neowave Elliott Wave method. I've just bought his book (Mastering Elliott Wave) so that I can do my own counts on other instruments.

As advised I read the whole book quickly and then started in detail with an actual chart or two.

But I got stuck on Chapter 3 in which Glenn shows how to divide the data points into monowaves (sequences without even a small a price reversal) and then to group these monowaves for the purpose of assigning "structure labels" which will in due course be massaged into Elliott counts.

This offers a precise basis for manual counts which I have so far not been good at, preferring to use the automated counts produced by the Prognosis Elwave software.

Has anyone on this forum actually finished chapter 3 and if so, could they share with us a worked example of how the monowaves group?

I am assuming that when you look at your starting point monowave (which will be one wave only) then the subsequent action m1, m2 and m-0, m-1, m-2 may be composed of a number of monowaves as shown in Chapter 3. You then analyse the group m2 as a new m1 in the same way. This means that individual monowaves in m1, m2 etc will not be analysed individually.

The problem I have is that this is not 100% spelled out in Chapter3 and that I find that the starting point chosen makes an enormous difference to the grouping and then presumably the ultimate count. Also I get some very large groupings (7,11,15 waves) which Neely says in the book is rare. I wonder then if I am going in the right drection.

When/if I get useful results I'll be glad to share them on the forum.

Best wishes
Tony Heyes

you might want to take a look at the "wave watch lessons" under past interviews/seminars, maybe this helps you

http://www.neowave.com/info-past-interview.asp

Thanks RemingtonTJ, you're right as usual!!

Working through the two "lessons" found at your link it is clear that my initial understanding was wrong. Incidentally Glenn Neely would not answer my question on this in detail because he said it was too complicated to answer by email, and wanted me to join his $10 a minute live tutoring. He was very helpful in other matters.

I am too much a Neowave rookie to pay $10 per minute for all of my ignorance and I wonder if anyone else has had the same problems in matching Glenn's results as I have.

The answer in the "Lessons" is that starting with a significant single monowave you have to get the m-4, m-3, m-2, m0, m2, m3, m4, m5 for that monowave. These will, as Neely says not usually be very long. For example if you choose Neely's chrono 1 in Lesson 1 as m1 then m0 is five monowaves (6 datapoints) and m2 is 3 monowaves (5 datapoints because of a rule of neutrality). So both are groups and not monowaves. You use these groups only in deriving the rule id and the pre-constructive rules of logic.

Then you "discard" these groups and move one monowave to the right and repeat the process getting a different division of prior and future monowaves into groups. I may be stupid but I think the use of monowave in Chapter 3 to mean sometimes a group and sometimes a single monowave is misleading.

I would post a picture of my result here, but as a junior member, I don't think I can. Can I hope for promotion!

Meanwhile you can see my waves at http://www.ontheside.org/sent/neowav...son1groups.pdf

On to my next stupidity.

I get significant differences between my derivation of Rule Ids and the ones shown in the Lesson 1. I am still trying to explain these and of course if I don't I won't get the structure labels to match either.

I really would like to correspond in detail with anyone who has worked through Chapter 3 of Mastering Elliott Wave, whether successfully or not. I cannot be the only one who has struggled, but surely many have succeeded?