DislikedLOL, I dont know why your post trigger me to post here, but I am not trying to be aggressive here.
I just found it funny and hypocritical that you found the originator post questionable and your reply post was also questionable.
You could answer your right question of "what is the source of this information?"
The source may be important feature, but the relevance and context is more important than the source.
My right question would be a bit different to your right question.
[b][color="Red"]My question would be "under what...Ignored
Hi Foxbunny,
please let me focus on the red marked sentence of your reply.
My question would be "under what conditions and scenarios are those statistics collected?"
Since we agree, that EW is no exact science, huge guesswork is needed etc., it is clear, that the statistical data reflect probabilities. There is no chance in the world, that you can obtain such data, or better analyze data, with sub-group analysis, since financial markets are highly interrelated to too much outside factors (that is the reason why fundamental analysis nearly always sucks - no brain or computer big enough). All you can do is divide by instrument (like stocks or commodities), upsloping or downsloping, maybe short term and longer term. All others will be at the end like reading tea leafs.
All we can do is judge from the above shown studies, if a retracement by time or price is likely to be ended or not. That is all. And there is no value in a statement, that a wave 2 needs more than 50% of the time of a wave 1, and stating it is a rule. It is neither a rule nor a good guideline......
and thanks for compliment
