Sorry you had that experience. Subjective EW will get one nowhere, sooner than later. However, there is another EW. Peace!
gnome, I couldn't agree more with your statement(s)! 'Been an elliott wave follower for 20 years as well and concluded several years ago that it didn't help my trading one bit. It's one of those theories that really sucks in newbies and some people become addicted to it like a drug. Bottom line: It doesn't help anybody make any money. If anybody making a profit is honest with himself, he'll likely conclude it is *certainly* not because of EW but some other trading techniques like money management, stops, etc. It's a newbie thing. They're looking for certainty, guidance and a "path". EW gives a false sense of that.
My bearish view ST was right. Particularly, the EW count on NDX cash was correct. We are in the wave five of C, as showed in this updated chart..... http://elliottwaver.blogspot.com/ Quintrix
Yes, I think that the natural target of the this wave five isn't a double bottom.... So, we could drop below 1660 (cash) to 1645/1640..don't know the timeline...however The failure of this pattern should be the return of the movement above 1685 (NDX cash) Best Q.
Interesting stuff. I don't use Elliott Wave although I enjoy seeing other's commentary. Also interesting is that my own analysis led me to short at the same time. On the NDX, your minimum target area would also fill the gap from late November and result in a test of the 50-day moving average, both of which would seem to make sense.
I believe that your use of Elliott language is not very accurate and your interpretation of the current wave count is suspect. Why would you be calling for 5 waves down when only "impulse" waves are counted in fives and it is clear that the trend to the upside from the October lows has been "impulsive" . . . It is also interesting to note that you show a "5" marking the high, yet you fail to label this entire sequence . . . ie.) Is it a Wave 1??? Furthermore, your "5" is a bit on the short side and I think that you would be hard pressed to find a clear "impulsive" structure in that "5" from the low that you mark as "4". If anything, it appears to have rallied in an a-b-c "three" which would make it corrective and an "x" where you have labeled the high in "5". As a result, it is entirely possible that your chart, from where you have marked "4" on . . . is still a "4" and corrective in nature, ie.) a Double Zig-Zag. ie. ( a,b,c,x,a,b,c )
Wow!..you mean that we are on the verge of a monster movement that brings the SPX into new historical highs? ...amazing ...but it is still early ..time will tell Q.