Thanks for sharing. Interesting idea. However, are you using EW labels because it pleases the eye or bias or you really see wave I with 5 internal waves and like wise wave 3 conforming to guidelines and rules. I am asking because I have struggled to label wave 1 with 5 internal waves it seems more like wxy zigzag. Would be interested in your explanation.
in Wave I
1 is clear to apr10
2 clear to june10
3 clear to feb11
4 clear to march11 (fukushima
5 into benladen capture 2nd may11 (this one is small but was under constraint of the top line apr10/feb11...)
Yes I see that and have seem many label that as wave 1 and internal 5 waves. But they do not seem to fit the guide line and rules namely as you progress along that wave 1 you have falling momentum, then within those swings on lower time frame there are no minor 5 waves. But if you think that is not necessary then I have not issues. Personally I would not be happy with that count.
If you try to fit all the "rule", you are looking for perfection.. This is an art... And there is some creativity in reading it... But at this point, it is far behind. I am more interesting in the 100% up from bottom and the 38.2% subsequent retracement... That gives me wave I and II and i move on.... BTW: i find EW fantastic in the philosophy but the rules need to be twicked to the circumstances..
OK I can accept that. However, the problem is that what follows - If the current top is wave 3 then you can be very bullish upon wave 4 correction. But if the start of the move of the low from 2009 do not follow the labels you have then the current top might not be wave 3, something else. So in that context cannot dismiss what too place then even though it was long time ago. Thanks anyway. Appreciate it.