any one have any experience with elwave7.1 . looking to use for holding positions over 3-7 days . Not intra days. I rade mostly the forex markets.
Only that every case of Elliott Waves I've ever seen (regardless of program) have only worked in hindsight.
I kind of agree with what Arch is saying. Short term wave analysis does not always work so well in real time. Longer term wave analysis can work very well, unless you are Bob Prechter from 1994 to 2004, then wave analysis has not really worked so well.
after 5w there always consolidation a,b,c wave so to speak may be some money can be make after a 5w completed
have been trading for about 1 1/2 yrs and make some profit when i dont get too greedy. I am always looking for new ways to confirm trades .But maybe all the bull they sell out there is smoking mirrors. Does it basically come down to the basics of trading s/r, trendlines, fibs, higher highs and fundamental announcement. Is that enough to get a tight trading plan? i feel i am wasting my time looking for the ultimate indicators which dont work. They only work on there selected charts when they demonstrate thier product or technique .
To Archangel. watchdaride, Reitberg, nkhoi and others "Only that every case of Elliott Waves I've ever seen (regardless of program) have only worked in hindsight"... Baron has kindly authorised me to respond to this. MTPredictor's Isolation Approach to EW means that labels/counts never change for the duration of a trade from entry to exit. If the Scanner finds a specific low Risk/high Reward set-up, the count can only change after an entered trade is closed out on breach of the initial stop. It is also our understanding other EW-based programs are vulnerable to count changes mid-trade. Regards and good trading hornet Tony Beckwith MTPredictor Ltd.
That's interesting, but it sounds like all it's doing is holding a presumed count until the trade based on it fails and then recomputing a new presumed count. Doesn't change that while EW "might" be 100% accurate in hindsight, the trader can easily end up going through potentially hundreds of hypothetical counts (all wrong) before the "waves" magically line up with the "incredible accuracy" EWers claim - but only after the fact.
I have looked at Elliott theory for years and subscribed to Woodson Wave.com and others. Elliott counts MUCH more often than not change as the waves (price/time) unfold. If you have a "scanner (that)....finds a specific low risk/high reward set up" that sounds a bit like the Advanced GET scanner. When you say "the count can only change after an entered trade is closed out on breach of the initial stop" it just sounds like you are playing with words, the Elliott counts are still changing but you just have tight stops. Charts speak volumes....got any to post right here in this thread showing the before/after charts with counts labeled? I think it is showing that I am not trustful of "predictive" attempts like Elliott.
I used Elliottician software for a couple of years. In scanning the data, it literally considered as many as 94 MILLION possibilities before settling on a preferred count.... STILL wasn't worth 2 dead flies! After diddling with Elliott methods over the years and trying a few software counters, I'd have to say... in general, Elliott considerations are mostly fishing in a dry hole. There are, however, 3 trades I watch out for: 1. A clear 5 waves down 2. a-b-c flag correction 3. a-b-c-d-e 4th wave triangle That's it.
I don't use elliott nevertheless my model can confirm that indeed there are some fibo ratios. Although there are multiple combination possible what I called expectancy (in orange see picture below) has the most probability to occur. For example today bottom was near the 10411.11 value. This is numerology whereas on the right side is the true fondamental model and you can see 10400 just before the crossing of lines. Normally that's what I would expect as target of consolidation (the blue line is the consolidation line, the green line is the normal trend) but it stopped one point before at 10411 instead that is to say near the fib ratio wave. Although I acn't validate the complex rules of Elliott I can still say that it is not totally illusion as my model doesn't introduce adhoc any fib ratios I can prove that these ratios are the consequences of a more fundamental law that the Elliottists ignore but they can observe the visual manifestation and translate it into waves and ratios.