If you want original insight you could at least spell it correctly. Perhaps then, instead of asking someone here to help you and then pretentiously declaring it was too much to hope for, you could find his grave, dig him up and ask the man himself.
What works for some does not work for others. Not because this or that TA is good or bad, but how it is applied. We all have different approaches to the market that work. If not, we wouldn't trade the market profitably, right? We are on a planet that rotates at over 1,000 mph, moving through space are a far greater speed than that. While we sense that we are motionless, all, including ourselves, are in a constant vibratory state. The Golden Ratio is just one harmonic of that vibration, one harmonic.
I worked for PTJ as a floor trader and know for a fact that he used it successfully. He also used a lot of fibonacci retracements and "measured-moves" . . . Simple, but effective. My Wave Count is shown below in the following JPEG file:
I've studied all the books on EW. And ultimately, it's very subjective. The truth is that the market's behavior is not fully random nor is it systematic, it is chaotic and fractal, and that is about the extent that I agree with EW theory (Chaos theory is objective as mandlebrot followers know). You can find just about any pattern in back data, but try to look at an EW predictive analysis. Those who practice EW are constantly updating and refining their models, when it doesn't fit the count. Then, when they spend hours to massage it to fit the pattern they see, they say it fits the objective rules. You can read the objective rules all day long, and they would just fail on an unbiased predictive program. I do see a lot of merit in fibonacci/psychological growth, but that's not elliot waves. If you step way back for fifty years, the market does go up and down in waves and pullbacks. However, there is no way to predict the turning pts nor duration with accuracy using elliot wave rules. By the time you are ready for the great pullback and short the market, the market goes up for another two years, you get your head handed to you on a plate, and then the EW theorists say, "oh, that was just an extra D count, see? We had to revise our models." Better to follow the school of systematic postion and risk trading IMHO. Although, TA does have merits on the short term, but it is far less subjective then EW.
Eliott Waves? Supposed to work? ... Even when read I my first TA book it seemed biased. You can see any wave you want to see. Perhaps some people are taking the "good waves" and make a living of it. I would certainly not rely on this kind of things( I don't even believe in TA although i'm an automated trader ).
Ok, we all know what the problem is with Elliott Wave. There's really no need to pontificate for paragraph after paragraph as to why it's such an awful method, for those that don't believe in it or feel it is pseudo-science. Wonderful, all the power to you. Although of course, you are free to write whatever you want, and keep ranting about how stupid the thing is, knock yourself out. However, for those of you who actually want to contribute something, please try and answer the question in the thread's title. I'm interested in the response of believers/users. Wallace tried to explain that it's due to mass psychology, which is essentially Prechter's position (Yes, yes I know Prechter failed miserably in his predictions for a crash, but this thread is not about the predictive abilities of any guru, again). I have since searched ET and the only relevant answer I've seen yet came from Harrytrader, who stopped posting a while ago. His argument was that turning points are created by a MINORITY and then the rest of the crowd follows. Sort of like an 80/20 rule. 20% of the traders initiate direction and the rest follow. But Harry trader's best contribution was a link to Mandelbrot's insights and fractal finance. He also claimed that the golden ratio was not due to crowd psychology but rather seemed to be a property of complex systems. Anyone else?
Why the hostility Kiwi trader, had a bad trading day? And what are you, the local spell check ombudsman? Amazing what nonsense some people here waste their energy and time on. The originator of the theory has already spoken as to why it is supposed to be an accurate/predictive model. RN Elliott argued that it represented mass psychology, just like many of the modern day gurus do. I disagree, and so do many others. So no need for me to go digging graves.