We see a larger term impulse wave has formed. The wave 5 appeared to be an ending diagonal. This is confirmed by the sharp move to the end of it almost immediately after. Assuming this is a wave 5 diagonal, we can see that it had a throwover, which helps support the sharp decline downwards that followed.
There is clear alternation in the wave 2 and 4 of the greater impulse which helps support my idea that this is a larger impulse wave.
The wave 3 is extended which is quite evident from the substructure.
The price action from the diagonal appears to be a flat. The move to new highs can be contained within parallel lines, and appears to be 2 impulse waves seperated by one corrective wave. This type of structure is a 3 wave move, mostlikely a zigzag. We have broken out of the channel for the wave B, which is an indicator wave C is starting.
I am unsure of whether this will be a running flat or an expanded flat. If it is a running flat, it will probably end at the 1:1 of wave A that is projected from wave B high, which is 129.935.
In the even this is an expanded flat I will assume a 1.234 or a 1.65 extension which is the 129.760 levels and the 1.65 levels.
Mika K Time prediction Theory.
I anticipate that this wave c of the flat will be done from 4:15 to 12:30 april 8th.
This will be my first time anticipating the move for a flat. Since flats are 3-3-5 structures, I assume that the two three wave moves, will be somewhat equal to eachother.in time. From this I will conclude that from 0 to the end of wave B, half of the time of the flat will already be completed. The reason why it isn't larger than 50% of the total time to complete the wave is because the 5 wave move following will be the largest and longest part of the wave. My reasoning behind this isn't yet empirical, but instead off of my logic. The 5 wave move is far more complex, leading me to believe that it must take longer than the 3 wave moves. Of course, this doesn't mean that the wave C must take the remaining 0.5% of the wave. Maybe each zigzag is around 0.3, meaning that the wave C will be 0.4 of the length of wave A.
I do know, is that the initial 3 wave moves, can't each take up more than 0.329 of the total time the flat takes to be completed. If this were the case, wave 5 would be shorter than the length of the 3 wave moves and would invalidate my original belief that the wave 5 is longer.
I am aware that there are multiple ways to construct a flat, so I will only assume that this method of anticipation is accuate for the flats that are zigzag-zigzag- impulse.
More research must be done with other formations.
Another piece of information for a later date is the idea that in the same way wave 4 subdivides the impulse in terms of fibonacci price and time, the wave B will also subdivide the flat and zigzag in terms of fibonacci price and time. This means that although the 1 and 2 can't be used to conclude the time wave 3 will take, the wave a can't be used to conclude how long the wave B will take. But from the wave a and B information, I believe I can figure out how long the wave C will take.
There is clear alternation in the wave 2 and 4 of the greater impulse which helps support my idea that this is a larger impulse wave.
The wave 3 is extended which is quite evident from the substructure.
The price action from the diagonal appears to be a flat. The move to new highs can be contained within parallel lines, and appears to be 2 impulse waves seperated by one corrective wave. This type of structure is a 3 wave move, mostlikely a zigzag. We have broken out of the channel for the wave B, which is an indicator wave C is starting.
I am unsure of whether this will be a running flat or an expanded flat. If it is a running flat, it will probably end at the 1:1 of wave A that is projected from wave B high, which is 129.935.
In the even this is an expanded flat I will assume a 1.234 or a 1.65 extension which is the 129.760 levels and the 1.65 levels.
Mika K Time prediction Theory.
I anticipate that this wave c of the flat will be done from 4:15 to 12:30 april 8th.
This will be my first time anticipating the move for a flat. Since flats are 3-3-5 structures, I assume that the two three wave moves, will be somewhat equal to eachother.in time. From this I will conclude that from 0 to the end of wave B, half of the time of the flat will already be completed. The reason why it isn't larger than 50% of the total time to complete the wave is because the 5 wave move following will be the largest and longest part of the wave. My reasoning behind this isn't yet empirical, but instead off of my logic. The 5 wave move is far more complex, leading me to believe that it must take longer than the 3 wave moves. Of course, this doesn't mean that the wave C must take the remaining 0.5% of the wave. Maybe each zigzag is around 0.3, meaning that the wave C will be 0.4 of the length of wave A.
I do know, is that the initial 3 wave moves, can't each take up more than 0.329 of the total time the flat takes to be completed. If this were the case, wave 5 would be shorter than the length of the 3 wave moves and would invalidate my original belief that the wave 5 is longer.
I am aware that there are multiple ways to construct a flat, so I will only assume that this method of anticipation is accuate for the flats that are zigzag-zigzag- impulse.
More research must be done with other formations.
Another piece of information for a later date is the idea that in the same way wave 4 subdivides the impulse in terms of fibonacci price and time, the wave B will also subdivide the flat and zigzag in terms of fibonacci price and time. This means that although the 1 and 2 can't be used to conclude the time wave 3 will take, the wave a can't be used to conclude how long the wave B will take. But from the wave a and B information, I believe I can figure out how long the wave C will take.
עסקה סגורה: היעד הושג:
Incredibly interesting results.
The Elliott wave count appeared to be correct and we hit a low of 129.573.
What is more interesting is that we hit the low at 8:45 on April 8th, 2021.
This was almost in the dead center of my estimate.
Looking over my analysis, it appears that the wave B actually ended around 0.55% of the total wave. This is incredibly interesting and will be remembered for the next time I encounter a flat. All in all, a well devloped wave count.
Something to be considered is that the wave c didn't extend to a full 1.618.
This can be a result of why it ended before the 12:45 estimate.
The Elliott wave count appeared to be correct and we hit a low of 129.573.
What is more interesting is that we hit the low at 8:45 on April 8th, 2021.
This was almost in the dead center of my estimate.
Looking over my analysis, it appears that the wave B actually ended around 0.55% of the total wave. This is incredibly interesting and will be remembered for the next time I encounter a flat. All in all, a well devloped wave count.
Something to be considered is that the wave c didn't extend to a full 1.618.
This can be a result of why it ended before the 12:45 estimate.