market is correcting now (wave 2)
note: i forgot to label waves 1 and 2 of wave 3. typo on wave 5 diagonal. there should be a wave 4
I'm trying to find a way to exclude the latter from my alternate count and can't since both fit the form of Leading and Ending Diagonal Triangles (3-3-3-3-3).
We can use the rules to determine if Wave 2 of ATH started on 11-25 (your count) or, alternatively, if Wave 3 of Wave 5 of Bigger C started on 11-25 (my alternate count): Elliott Rule #1 - Wave 2 can never overlap the start of Wave 1.
Going forward, if we pass above 395.11 then Wave 5 of Bigger C may have indeed completed on 11-22, as you believe, because my alternate count would violate Rule 1 (Wave 2 of Wave 3 of Wave 5 of Bigger C cannot overlap the start of Wave 1 of Wave 3 of Wave 5 of Bigger C).
However, if we pass below 352.73 then only Wave 1 of Wave 5 of Bigger C may have completed on 11-22, with Waves 2-4 still to go, because your count would violate Rule 1 (Wave 2 of ATH can never overlap the start of Wave 1 of ATH).
So I'm trying to figure out why my alternate count cannot be a valid possibility. Thanks.
Like most Wave analysts, it looks like we have different wave counts. I have Wave 3 (of C) starting in June 2014, Wave 4 (of C) starting Oct 4, 2014, and Wave 5 (of C) starting Nov 12, 2014.
While Wave 1 tends to equal Wave 5 when Wave 3 extends, that isn't an absolute rule, so if Wave 5 also extends (which is possible) then my alternate count is still a possibility, but your count may have a higher probability.
Stated differently, we cannot completely exclude the possibility that we completed Wave 1 of Wave 5 of bigger C as an alternate count based on the rules, correct?
Thus, I think your analysis may be the primary count but with Elliott wave we're supposed to also consider alternate counts (and associated trading plans) since Elliott Wave is a probabilistic, rather than deterministic, system.
Thanks and keep up the good work. ;)
Good analysis and look forward to seeing which one of our short-term counts ends up violating Rule 1.