JA
jarek
Rep: 94
Posts: 3,474
Hello everybody. I've just returned from my vacations and I wonder what happened to this forum while I was away... I haven't done any analysis yet but I'll start the topic anyway since it looks like nobody else is willing to do it.
JA
jarek
Rep: 94
Posts: 3,474
Jim - what was so special about ES 1100? Was it the set below?
Click image for original size
JI
jimkane
Rep: 3,058
Posts: 33,089
jarek,
I'd have to show you this 'in person'. It is based, though, on the overlap of your set and another set, which shows me a serious frequency/rhythm to the two sets. I'm not sure 1100 will hold for long, but it surely is an area I wanted to look at for a short-term setup, and then see what it did from there. Then if it drops more, great, and if not, that's fine, too.
I'd have to show you this 'in person'. It is based, though, on the overlap of your set and another set, which shows me a serious frequency/rhythm to the two sets. I'm not sure 1100 will hold for long, but it surely is an area I wanted to look at for a short-term setup, and then see what it did from there. Then if it drops more, great, and if not, that's fine, too.
JI
jimkane
Rep: 3,058
Posts: 33,089
The line ping-pong on this one on the 3-min since early today is just insane.
JA
jarek
Rep: 94
Posts: 3,474
Originally posted by jimkane
Unreal line to line on that 3-min. Everyone seeing that?
Me not. What's the set?
JA
jarek
Rep: 94
Posts: 3,474
Another moment of thruth. After this small abcd as potential Wave 2 off bigger ABCD it has to break above the upper ML to deny ES 1100 as PTA. Otherwise it may roll over:
Click image for original size
JA
jarek
Rep: 94
Posts: 3,474
Very curious - another clear ABCD formed:
Jim - would you consider it as potential Wave 2 off 1100 area despite the fact that initial thrust of this area was also an ABCD?
Click image for original size
Jim - would you consider it as potential Wave 2 off 1100 area despite the fact that initial thrust of this area was also an ABCD?
JA
jarek
Rep: 94
Posts: 3,474
And here comes Wave 3. As Jim likes to say: "All Waves 3 are failed ABCDs"
JI
jimkane
Rep: 3,058
Posts: 33,089
jarek,
Sorry I didn't answer any of your questions, I got 'busy' with all the action in all the various issues. I'll try to give you some quickie answers here.
The line set for the 3-min ping-pong, I'd have to show you a chart for that. Then you can post it for everyone later if you want.
As far as a 'W2', I find 'W1' and AB legs can be three-legged structures, which, at least for an AB leg, is allowed under Elliott rules. I don't prefer such structures, but they aren't deal breakers for me if I really want in in that direction. The issue here is do I expect much more off 1100 but an ABCD? As roofer used to say, one of the things he doesn't like is when a Kane ABCD sets up against his trade. The problem, for me, from a practical standpoint, is that every 'W3' that is doing exactly what I want it to do off an ABCD reversal looks, at one point, like an ABCD setting up against the PTA ABCD. So, I tend to watch those areas and see what happens, but not draw too many conclusions about what they mean as they form.
This all has to do with 'context'. 'Context' helps me 'weight' the various areas as they set up, and set up against each other. That gives me a feel for how much I expect the area to produce, and I try to use that to create a premise for a trade, and a management strategy. I was fairly confident that 1100 would produce a reaction, but I noted that I was having trouble seeing the bear side. So, as the ABCD formed, I had to judge where it formed, and what I thought of that area. In this case, it was within two ticks of a key .382, and just about dead on a key line, so given my distrust at that time for the short side, I didn't want to let this come back up too much before thinking back to long side bias intraday. I hope this helps.
Sorry I didn't answer any of your questions, I got 'busy' with all the action in all the various issues. I'll try to give you some quickie answers here.
The line set for the 3-min ping-pong, I'd have to show you a chart for that. Then you can post it for everyone later if you want.
As far as a 'W2', I find 'W1' and AB legs can be three-legged structures, which, at least for an AB leg, is allowed under Elliott rules. I don't prefer such structures, but they aren't deal breakers for me if I really want in in that direction. The issue here is do I expect much more off 1100 but an ABCD? As roofer used to say, one of the things he doesn't like is when a Kane ABCD sets up against his trade. The problem, for me, from a practical standpoint, is that every 'W3' that is doing exactly what I want it to do off an ABCD reversal looks, at one point, like an ABCD setting up against the PTA ABCD. So, I tend to watch those areas and see what happens, but not draw too many conclusions about what they mean as they form.
This all has to do with 'context'. 'Context' helps me 'weight' the various areas as they set up, and set up against each other. That gives me a feel for how much I expect the area to produce, and I try to use that to create a premise for a trade, and a management strategy. I was fairly confident that 1100 would produce a reaction, but I noted that I was having trouble seeing the bear side. So, as the ABCD formed, I had to judge where it formed, and what I thought of that area. In this case, it was within two ticks of a key .382, and just about dead on a key line, so given my distrust at that time for the short side, I didn't want to let this come back up too much before thinking back to long side bias intraday. I hope this helps.