RSI Divergences

You've labelled the move down to 2009 lows as a (b) wave but you've also labelled it as an impulse (motive) wave. A wave B of any degree is ALWAYS corrective and cannot have a motive form (ie 5 waves).

You've labelled the move up from 03/2009 to 04/2010 as an A wave. This needs to have the form of either an abc (as you appear to have labelled it) or a motive 5 wave form. In the abc case your c wave would need to be motive (ie have 5 subwaves) but yours has only 3. This is not an acceptable form for a c wave . It's OK for a W, Y or Z but that's not how you're labelling your count.

Your rules of counting are also suggesting the this current move to all times highs is a large degree wave ((a)) which would then require a wave ((b)) down followed by a ((c)) up. In other words, you've got the whole move up from 2009 lows as a corrective sequence but what is it correcting against if it's at all time highs at an ((a)) wave with further massive highs to come for the ((c))?

You're correct that there was no >50% retrace in the move I highlighted but there's no rule that says a wave 2 MUST be >50%. There's the guideline of alternation which suggests that 2 should normally have the opposite form from 4 but, again, that's not a rule.

There are no circumstances in EWT which allow for a wave A of any degree to be at an all time high. A wave B can be, but not an A. An A wave after an uptrend MUST end lower than the previous trend high.

Of course, all of these problems (and others I've not mentioned) would go away if only you drop your rule about RSI divergences. There is no such rule.

Is it not really much more likely that the sequence I posted is an impulse wave? It doesn't break any EWT rules to have it as such whereas your count does.

I do accept, as I've stated, that RSI divergence are often seen as you describe but they aren't a requirement. There seems little point in repeating this so I'll leave it at that. RSI wasn't even invented when Elliott devised his theory so it's impossible for it to have been a fundamental requirement of it.

GL.

Mmmmm...... looks like 5 waves to me

The label for the current wave is undecided and will be clarified when the top is ultimately achieved.

There is no rule of divergence in EWT as stated in 1938 for the simple reason I have already stated at the outset: there was no RSI until 1978. My point was, and is, had the RSI been in existence I'm 100% certain Mr Elliott would have made it a rule.

I should also have mentioned the RSI divergence on that five way wave 5 as just posted:)

"My point was, and is, had the RSI been in existence I'm 100% certain Mr Elliott would have made it a rule."

But that's pure supposition diver. And given his almost OCD-like meticulousness and the fact that RSI divergences don't backtest 100% of the time I doubt he would have.

What you've just shown there IS a 5 wave move - it's the 5th wave up from 03/09 lows. However, you've got that whole 5 wave move as an ab-abc move. That's not part of EWT. Even then, the first subwave up of the sequence you've highlighted (which isn't the one I was referring to) only retraces 38.2% so by your earlier argument can't be a subwave 2 but that's exactly what you're saying it is.

Still, each to their own. As long as it's working for you mate...

The fact is they do backtest 100% if you label correctly.
You think I'm wrong and I know you're wrong, so let's agree to differ and leave it there:)

Yes, let's.

Remo, Ronnie et al, my apologies for having been drawn into this. There's simply no helping some people.