[dandelion]

Hi Rob:

Yes, I am interested to know about running corrections. I saw this term in Ray's Blog, but could not find in the book. Thought I slept through a chapter....
How do we go about doing the explanation from Ray's webinar?

[bigbird]

Hi Rob,

Originally Posted by gassah »

The BC measurement does come into play with running corrections and R0 patterns. I don't think running corrections are in the book. I can try to explain them from Ray's webinar if you are interested.

Do you have a link to his webinar? Do you need to pay for it?

Thanks.

[gassah]

Originally Posted by bigbird »

Do you have a link to his webinar? Do you need to pay for it?

The webinar is over a year old now and about 20 sessions. He might offer a discount. I'd ask his assistant Kwok @ oikwok@gmail.com.

Rob

[gassah]

Originally Posted by dandelion »

Hi Rob:
Yes, I am interested to know about running corrections. I saw this term in Ray's Blog, but could not find in the book. Thought I slept through a chapter....
How do we go about doing the explanation from Ray's webinar?

I’m using the Nasdaq 8/09 as an example. Take the 38.2, 50, 61.8% fibos between AB and BC. Look for where there’s a confluence of zones. In this case I erased the top 38.2 and 50%. Take the lower 61.8% and change it to 67%. After you buy a bull bar off these levels place the stop below the 67%.

The RC can be thought of as a sideways correction that is too strong to make it closer to B and should lead to a strong impulse move. It’s stronger than a single line, zig-zag or sideways correction, and not as strong as an irregular correction or R0.

[dandelion]

Hi Rob:

I redo the charts to make sure I understand you correctly.

Originally Posted by gassah »

I need to make a correction. CD does not need to come down to 78.6% of AB in order to label it a sideways market and to make changes to the ME. All it has to do is have a one bar acceptance below the PSZ of AB (like an upthrust). If it turns up to challenge C then I'd change the boundaries from AB to BC. It doesn't matter how it goes up.

Refer to pic5.jpg

Originally Posted by gassah »

What I said about changing the boundaries if it continues lower still applies.

Refer to pic6.jpg

Originally Posted by gassah »

If it comes down to 78.6% of BC but stays above the PSZ of AB then you just have a continuation of the uptrend.

Based on your Nasdaq 8/09 example, CD comes down to 78.6% of BC but actually went below PSZ of AB instead of staying above as mentioned in your requirements for a continuation of uptrend. Did you meant "staying above PBZ of AB" instead?
Then this scenario would be similarly to that drawn in pic6.jpg, right?

Thank you.

[gassah]

I replied last week but I don't see the response now. Did I not? I stopped drinking a few weeks ago.

[gassah]

I'll try again. I asked Ray for assistance because sideways vs. corrective was throwing me a loop. Here's his response:

A sideways correction is one form of a complex correction.

Your question raises two issues:

1) when do we relabel a new extreme as being part of sideways structure? A: when the market retraces at least 78.6% of the boundaries of congestion.

2) when the market creates a new extreme (in your case when the market goes above (A) and returns to congestion, at what point do we say the BC leg is corrective and not impulsive? A: when the market accepts beyond the Primary Zone.

Note that the two conditions are not mutually exclusive - e.g. you can accept below the Primary Sell Zone (D) without reaching the 78.6% retracement. This would make the structure a Running Correction rather than an extended SW structure.

Hope this helps

ray