Sage

Anyone looking at this?

Although I've drawn the fibs on here at the recent high I'm not sure this is now changing course just yet?

Sorry, keep forgetting to include the link
dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7238706/SAGE%20GRP..png

Hi Diver,

On that count, you appear to have had a wave 1 up followed by a wave 2 down - OK so far - but then you've got a 5 wave impulsive move up which ought to be wave 3 or wave 1 of 3 but you've labelled its top as an ((a))? This doesn't make any sense to me. It suggests that the move up from your wave 2 low is a massive corrective move up to a possible ((c)) at the recent 371 high?

How can you have a wave 1 up followed by a 2 down and then another, bigger, correction upwards? Surely the move up from the wave 2 low (which you've initially labelled as impulsive too!) is at least part of a wave 3?

I don't want to re-open old arguments, but I suspect that these counts are confusing a lot of people as they don't conform to EWT (as it was published).

Jackozy, ignore the wave 1 and 2 and it makes sense:) I thought it had a chance of being a 1 and 2 but then saw differently and forgot to change the labels.

I really don't care what label you put on a wave, for me it is the structure of the wave that's important. You can call them wotsits and thingamegigs or whatever. It's not really important. I certainly have no wish to get anal about the rights and wrongs of a label

diver993 wrote: Jackozy, ignore the wave 1 and 2 and it makes sense:) I thought it had a chance of being a 1 and 2 but then saw differently and forgot to change the labels.

I really don't care what label you put on a wave, for me it is the structure of the wave that's important. You can call them wotsits and thingamegigs or whatever. It's not really important. I certainly have no wish to get anal about the rights and wrongs of a label

That rather begs the question: why bother labelling them at all then?

All I'm asking you to do is to explain something that is confusing a lot of people but you seem unable to provide a proper answer. Instead you make insinuations about being "anal" about getting the labelling correct. What's the point in putting up a chart with Elliott Wave labels on it if you're not bothered about getting them right?

Seems rather pointless to me.

Thanks for responding.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7238706/SAGE%20GRP.alt.png

Correct; it is pointless to argue about something, the truth of which can never be known until after the event. For me the above interpretation is what works best at the moment, but may well change with the passage of time. It could become part of anything. The point is, it doesn't matter because nobody is trading such time-frames. I'm rather surprised to hear you say I'm confusing a lot of people as you are the only person responding.
When I referred to being anal I was referring to my own attitude in that I feel trying to put too much detail into labeling every last jitter and jot is just trying to prove yourself right and there is no point in that. The only important thing, from a trading point of view, is to be on the right side of the trend: that way, even if you enter at the wrong time, the trade will come back to you. That is why I look at the wider picture and then trade 'in close'. Looking at the chart above; there are 7 swings from (( b )) to C: from a trading point of view, does it really matter what you label them or does it matter whether the trend line holds at 330?