EURUSD short-term Elliott wave view suggests that the decline to 1.1427 low ended cycle red wave II pullback. The internals of that pullback unfolded as a Flat structure which ended the correction against 8/15/2018 low. Up from 1.1427 low, the pair is expected to resume the next leg higher in red wave III. The internals of wave III is expected to nest higher as impulse structure for further upside. Up from there, the initial rally to 1.1610 high blue wave (1) in 5 waves structure.
Where lesser degree red wave 1 ended at 1.1515, red wave 2 ended at 1.1479 low. A rally to 1.1572 high ended red wave 3. A pullback to 1.1540 low ended red wave 4. Then finally a rally to 1.1610 high ended red wave 5 & also completed blue wave (1).
Currently, the correction against 1.1427 low remains in progress as a Flat structure where red wave A ended at 1.1534 low. Then a rally to 1.1621 high ended red wave B bounce and red wave C looking to end 5 waves structure somewhere between 100%-161.8% Fibonacci extension area of red A-B at 1.1545-1.1497 area. Afterwards, pair is expected to resume the next leg higher in blue wave (3) higher. We don’t like selling it.
Any updates with today’s price action? Will it go down further?
and-one
⋅
Hello ! I agree with the general markup, but .. The wave ((iii)) in wave C is the smallest. It is unacceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong.
ElliottWaveBelgium
⋅
@and-one, You are right. When the count was done, wave 5 was still the smallest but when price moved lower, it invalidated the subwave count but the (1)(2) count is still valid nonetheless as long as price stays above 1.1430.
I went long again now because you can clearly see the subwaves formed in this wave C and divergence is starting to build up. + You have a very thight Stop 1.1430 so you have an incredible Risk/Reward Ratio.
@kirilspiridonov, I don't see what you mean ... but it doesn't matter in this case, the count was wrong ;)
kirilspiridonov
⋅
@em16, it is wrong exactly because of this wrong wave. In currencies the wave counting is very specific. Look at the other analysis by this provider and you will see that they count them wrong. They does not follow the rule that the forth must not touch the first