Apparently, we have a great move today or monday . The EUR / USD chart I will post in coming days . Great attention for those ho are the transaction on the sale, it's time to close them and change your option. At this time we are in wave 4 of a terminal impulse with wave-1 extended . According to the theory, it should be in relation to wave 2 for the price 61.8% or equal or relate by 61.8% in time . So theoretically should last no longer than 90 minutes, then wave-5 will fall below 1.2943 but will be lower in price than wave-3 . Completion will be followed by a sudden movement in the opposite direction.
Good luck !
Terminal impulse was not confirmed for Eur-Usd, means it will be only an impulse with wave-3 extended . After completing wave 4, wave 5 will descend with 35-45 pips, then the trend will change.
Good luck !
After waters were cleared , I arrived at a different conclusion than expected in the previous posts. So EUR / USD pair, will suffer a correction at this time. The analysis made by me, it appears that the wave c of irregular flat was completed with a failed wave 5. In these conditions the theory says that this momentum will be retrace the impulse entirely. In the long term, it means that the wave (with impulse shape), which is just underway, will exceed the maximum of 1.3242. I go even further, saying that it is possible to reach the 1.3400 to 1.3500.
This wave (C wave in a common flat) debuted with a leading diagonal triangle, which was finalized on Friday, reaching a maximum of 1.3107.
Therefore, in the coming days we will see a correction for this first impulse.
I think that trying to predict market movement in small steps, it isn't a success for me (I hurry), so this time I will post only analyze large time intervals (refer to post 5689). As I wrote in 5689, EUR / USD will reach a value of over 1.3710. Remain the same opinion now, saying that while it probably will not exceed the value of 1.4080. This wave that is in progress, is a double combination, the first wave is a common flat (b wave retreated a wave between 81% and 100%). After completing wave c and therefore flat (perhaps from 1.3400 to 1.3500), we will have an x correction and then a second wave consists of 3 or combination of 3 segments. I hope to help someone this analysis.
Guys/Gal... perfect storm is coming .. long UCHF Daily chart show Wave 4 completed and start Wave 5 up trend {image} H4 chart shpw Wave 2 ended and start wave 3... both are showed posible uptrend {image}
Ignored
Hello Mwong
I am very impressed by your charting software in above post, man
Could you land me an e-mail or just tell what kind of software it is...
{quote} Hello Mwong I am very impressed by your charting software in above post, man Could you land me an e-mail or just tell what kind of software it is... or anyone?
I think that trying to predict market movement in small steps, it isn't a success for me (I hurry), so this time I will post only analyze large time intervals (refer to post 5689). As I wrote in 5689, EUR / USD will reach a value of over 1.3710. Remain the same opinion now, saying that while it probably will not exceed the value of 1.4080. This wave that is in progress, is a double combination, the first wave is a common flat (b wave retreated a wave between 81% and 100%). After completing wave c and therefore flat (perhaps from 1.3400 to 1.3500),...
Ignored
Your predication about euro rise was correct.
What worries me in your count is that 'failed 5th' - Really I have checked it in 1m chart.. It just doesn't look like any wedge or impulse for final leg.
Instead I think I can fix it with a flat tri-angle who's leg e is truncated.
__---___-__--__--______________________________
It has to be Impulsive wave C for euro crash.
*Check "German Constitutional Court Ruling" for tue/wed.. If german judge says something about leaving euro it could be euro all sold* However, if it is double irregulars + X(zigzags) + double irregular flat.. its gonna be wave A..and germany will stay in Euro.
_I am back to vacation .. I ain't going to focus on elwaves anymore _
{quote} Your predication about euro rise was correct. What worries me in your count is that 'failed 5th' - Really I have checked it in 1m chart.. It just doesn't look like any wedge or impulse for final leg. Instead I think I can fix it with a flat tri-angle who's leg e is truncated. __---___-__--__--______________________________ It has to be Impulsive wave C for euro crash. *Check "German Constitutional Court Ruling" for tue/wed.. If german judge says something about leaving euro it could be euro all sold* However, if it is double irregulars...
Ignored
What you say about this ? If it isn't right , I'm sorry but I don't see another option . You are right , only in M1 time frame , is visible . If it was a truncated zig-zag , the retracement was minimum 38.2% .
{quote} What you say about this ? If it isn't right , I'm sorry but I don't see another option . You are right , only in M1 time frame , is visible . If it was a truncated zig-zag , the retracement was minimum 38.2% . {image}
Ignored
That was a corrective wave... and is demonstrated by the fact that there was no alternation between Wave ii and Wave iv.
My apologies, but the idea of having both the Wave ii high below the Wave i and the Wave iv below the Wave iii is pushing the extreme of forcing a move to what you want it to be.
No I haven't got the wave structure wrong! I've corrected it!
{quote} That was a corrective wave... and is demonstrated by the fact that there was no alternation between Wave ii and Wave iv. My apologies, but the idea of having both the Wave ii high below the Wave i and the Wave iv below the Wave iii is pushing the extreme of forcing a move to what you want it to be.
Ignored
It may be wrong, but in these conditions, please show me how the correct numbering looks in your opinion .
{quote} That was a corrective wave... and is demonstrated by the fact that there was no alternation between Wave ii and Wave iv. My apologies, but the idea of having both the Wave ii high below the Wave i and the Wave iv below the Wave iii is pushing the extreme of forcing a move to what you want it to be.
Ignored
Ian , you are right , I wrong the numbering , but it is an impulse with wave-1 extended . My apologies , for the picture from post 5736 , it isn't complete , I rushed and I have not seen the further ( missing the wave-4 and wave-5 ) .
Good luck !
{quote} Ian , you are right , I wrong the numbering , but it is an impulse with wave-1 extended . My apologies , for the picture from post 5736 , it isn't complete , I rushed and I have not seen the further ( missing the wave-4 and wave-5 ) . Good luck ! {image}
Ignored
Well, if I may I will disagree! It was corrective...
I have shown the structure with key ratios. All Wave iii's came within 1-2 points of valid projection ratios and alternation between the ii & iv's valid. The Wave v's also good.
In my world there are no extended waves and no failed fifths as they are a result of the wrong structure. I still cannot agree with a peak of a Wave ii coming under the low of Wave i. Yes, EW allows all sorts of strange things but they are all hocus pocus to me! For me it's vital that everything can be measured and on the most part can be forecast. I'm not saying that it'll be right all the time but the ratios must be there otherwise EW is nothing but retrospective... I called the high so far within 5 points of the 238.2% projection in Wave -iii-...
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
No I haven't got the wave structure wrong! I've corrected it!
{quote} Well, if I may I will disagree! It was corrective... I have shown the structure with key ratios. All Wave iii's came within 1-2 points of valid projection ratios and alternation between the ii & iv's valid. The Wave v's also good. In my world there are no extended waves and no failed fifths as they are a result of the wrong structure. I still cannot agree with a peak of a Wave ii coming under the low of Wave i. Yes, EW allows all sorts of strange things but they are all hocus pocus to me! For me it's vital that everything can be measured...
Ignored
OK , from what I saw , the first and the last wave are identical ( impulse form ) . At me is a problem with wave iii ( the wave 4 - expanding triangle , retrace wave 3 , more that 61,8% , but don't make overlap with wave 1 or 2 ) . In this conditions , we have a fibonacci retracement rule violated , but the overlap rule is respected , so is posible to be an impulse . Analyzing , that the all impulse , is part from an irregulated flat ( wave c ) and the movement that followed completely retrace the impulse ( it isn't a terminal impulse ) , then the only option , in my opinion , would be a failed impulse . Indirect results that last wave is an impulse , but is posible to wrong . To leave the market to see their course and if I was right or not will be seen in the near future by completing the form impulse wave C of a common flat . Thank you for the opportunity to discuss constructively, with a master in this domain.
{quote} OK , from what I saw , the first and the last wave are identical ( impulse form ) . At me is a problem with wave iii ( the wave 4 - expanding triangle , retrace wave 3 , more that 61,8% , but don't make overlap with wave 1 or 2 ) . In this conditions , we have a fibonacci retracement rule violated , but the overlap rule is respected , so is posible to be an impulse . Analyzing , that the all impulse , is part from an irregulated flat ( wave c ) and the movement that followed completely retrace the impulse ( it isn't a terminal impulse )...
Ignored
It's a pleasure to discuss Elliott Wave... or more accurately Harmonic Elliott Wave.
I will ask one question that I'd like you to think about.
How did I know that the 1.3300-16 area was going to provide a reaction and successfully identify the 1.3177 (area) as the correction from the 1.3305 high?
I can tell you I used the low we have discussed as part of the calculation to forecast that 1.3300-16 target and also the 1.3177 (area) correction as a Wave -iv- ... the Wave -iv- was related to the depth of the Wave -ii-... (Wave -ii- being the low we discussed...)
No I haven't got the wave structure wrong! I've corrected it!
