Match Wave Count With Proper Oscillator When Applying 1.40 Rule

[MR]

The issue of Type 1 Buy criteria of oscillator pullback has come up again and I am hearing dissenting opinions. As u (Nate) had alluded, it comes back to the backtesting that AGET has done on type1 buys. If the testing was done using only 5/35 OSC PB parameter for Type 1 Buy, then making 5/35 OSC PB a criteria is logical. Is everyone at AGET teaching it or advising of it the same way? For a type 1 buy on daily frame: 5/35 OSC PB must be < 140% OR 5/35 OSC PB can be greater than 140% if 10/70 < 140%

I will highlight what I believe is true. If you still have doubts, I would highly recommend the AGET seminar video tape series.

The 5/35 Oscillator a benchmark. It is the "original" Elliott Wave count. When we think of a typical Type 1 setup, the 1.40 Rule defines the potential for that particular 5/35 Oscillator and only the original wave count.

The 1.40 Rule does work the same with alternate wave counts, but only if you match the alternate wave count with the corresponding oscillator. (see the chart example below)

If the 5/17 Oscillator breaks 1.4 the setup has greater risk. It must also be associated with or referenced to the short or aggressive wave count. If the 5.35 Oscillator breaks 1.4 it provides evidence a complex wave structure is building, or a more risky Type 1 setup is developing for the original Elliott wave count. The 10/70 Oscillator is what I call the "last chance" Oscillator. If the 10/70 Oscillator is Not broke, and the long wave count is being used, that Type 1 setup still has potential if the other AGET Type 1 tools and studies support the setup. This setup still has an element of higher risk associated with it, yet as long as it stays within that 1.4 range there a Type 1 setup cannot totally be ruled out.

When you have a setup where all three oscillators and corresponding wave counts are similar and the oscillators all are holding within 1.4, you have the potential of a powerful Type 1 building. When you have a setup where only the 5/35 and the 10/70 agree you still have a respectable Type 1 setup. When you have only the 10/70 working in your favor, you just only have an average Type 1 setup building, and it clearly has more risk associated with it.

The confusion may be growing now because we now can overlap the in eSignal three oscillators. The differences are not always clearly observable when overlapping. But the logic remains the same for all oscillators.

How do you read a chart when the 4 comes in
there has not been a 90%-140% pull back but then a few days or even 10 days or more the price does not go lower to move the 4 over but the 5/35 does pull back to 0? .... How do you read the chart. Another question that I have is when the pull back is over 140% do you throw the stock out and wait for another opportunity? There have been so many lately that fall into this category.

I tell you, it really is a not an easy question to answer. That is one reason why we still provide more advanced seminars. I would reference the answer to the above comments and the below chart illustration. Typically when you see an a pullback to be less than .90 you will see the making of an internal wave sequence in progress, or the continuation of a existing trend. If it becomes confusing, one answer if you have real-time data might be to cross reference with more variable time frames to reference to. If this helps, then you may still have an opportunty, but if it doesn't, save the chart and move on until it starts to make more sense later.

After reading a chart published on the list of file sharing documents I have a question (Chart published by Marc Rinehart on May 2, 2003 on STARR Surgical Co.) He is monitoring the stock for a Wave 4 pullback and a Type 1 buy. He is using a 10,70 oscillator with no further explanation.
a. Why not start with a 5,35.?
b. Should we try any other oscillator rather than a 5,35 without any "who is in control" issues.?

2. On an extensive document regarding the concept of Wave 4 channels, the author uses a MOB to establish upside (and downside) limits to try and ascertain the ending for Wave 4. I thought that MOBs were to be used to investigate ending of Wave 5. Do they have a use for Wave 4 also.

If my memory is correct, I showed that chart because I had confidence in the pattern from years of watching charts, but the 5/35 oscillator was not yet confirming this wave count at the time. The long wave count was. So I showed it as an alternative idea. (that is why we call it alternate; it is just another idea.) It wasn't much longer when the original wave count and the 5/35 supported the same picture as i suspected. Another way to verify an existing wave structure idea would be to cross-reference with the higher time frames.

As for the MOB question, you can definitely use a MOB for more than picking Wave 5 tops and bottoms. I am putting together more updates on the MOB which I will post at a later date.

[marginman]

Many thanks for Nate's help and your assiduous response.

[MR]

.

Originally posted by marginman
Many thanks for Nate's help and your assiduous response.

I just looked up 'assidious' and found out it is a good word! At first I thought 'assidious' was a bad word, Appreciate it...

Tried to refine and improve the initial response last night but there is a glitch in the program the keeps me from editing it. Will return to this topic later and embellish more.

On behalf of Nate, thank you for asking an important question.

Take care and have a great week, Marc

[MR]

more why Starr original using alternate wave count idea

.

(Chart published by Marc Rinehart on May 2, 2003 on STARR Surgical Co.) ... monitoring the stock for a Wave 4 pullback and a Type 1 buy. He is using a 10,70 oscillator with no further explanation. a. Why not start with a 5,35.? b. Should we try any other oscillator rather than a 5,35 without any "who is in control" issues.?

Sergio, Been thinking more about your question. I remembered posting a more detailed original post at the AGET User Group. It is in a PDF format. You may want to load it up and print it out to better read the text comments.

click here to load up the pdf

[marginman]

When you have a setup where all three oscillators and corresponding wave counts are similar and the oscillators all are holding within 1.4, you have the potential of a powerful Type 1 building. When you have a setup where only the 5/35 and the 10/70 agree you still have a respectable Type 1 setup. When you have only the 10/70 working in your favor, you just only have an average Type 1 setup building, and it clearly has more risk associated with it.

humbly request further illumination on Two issues Plz:

The process of running multiple setup scans on as many as 2300+ issues with the EOD product is already and becomes increasingly laborious if one is to manually sort through the charts to identify the proverbial congruence among the oscillators and match corresponding wave counts.

To facilitate this process and increase trade success rate, which combination of oscillator PB criteria would you exhaust manual review from daily scan results:

-5/35 & 10/70 PB within 90-140
-5/35 & 5/17 PB within 90-140
-some other combination

What are the steps associated with matching wave counts to the oscillator?

Elliott> properies> apply agressive/original/long term
Wave counts relabel, PTI recalculates, but osc histogram does not change
what do u do with this revised wave count and new PTI info?

Thx