Putting another possibility out there: this consolidation since 1833 is narrowing within contracting lines so far and could be a triangle which is almost complete. This doesn't make the two other wave counts any less potentially valid, in my view, however.
In fact, if this consolidation is a triangle and follows the path outlined in the chart and thrusts down to the target area, it might still be virtually indistinguishable -- at first -- from the main count shown of 1, 2, (1), (2), and pending (3). We would need to see how far down it goes before trying to make the distinction. A triangle, as a wave which precedes a final wave in a sequence, would ideally limit the downside to the target area shown, before a correction upward of the same magnitude ensued. On the other hand, a 3rd wave could extend much further down, then be followed by a fourth and fifth.
Comments
look4edge
⋅
yep, like alternate triangle count, but there is chance e could be over, nfp today, lets see
AynCzubas
⋅
Well, the a,b,c labeled in your chart would, all together, comprise the "a" wave of the triangle. It is the highest peak. The next lowest trough is "b", and so on.
look4edge
⋅
sure, traditional ew saying so, however Glenn Neely has neowave update of it and there are neutral triangles possible with longest c, makes sense here, bcs. a was monowave retracing sharp terminal w5 of 3 and was stopped at WL of pitchfork - which has very nice reactions
AynCzubas
⋅
I hear you. I have another reader who is doing Neowave analysis too. I haven't looked into it myself.