[bigbird]

Dear Rob,

Originally Posted by gassah »

In addition, Ray's labeling the counter-trend reaction with XABC and using AB to generate the ME. C cannot accept beyond the ME if a spring is going to occur. For the upside 5d breakout you'll have to re-label and in this case use the XA or XC as the boundaries which move the ME back above X.

Thanks. Actually, I did not mention clearly enough that my question is really about how to label X, A, B to determine a "continuation-spring".

Okay, referring back to the post here, for 1.jpg, I would label 456 as XAB to determine whether a continuation-spring has happened, rather than labeling 345 as XAB. Similarly, for 2.jpg, 456 as XAB would be used for continuation-spring determination.

On the other hand, for upthrust determination, we should label 345 in 1.jpg and 2.jpg as XAB. Is that correct

Thanks.

[gassah]

I find it easier keeping the labels as consistent as possible and using 345 as XAB. The other labeling Ray used is more of an anomaly. As long as you know 7 is springing 5 you're fine.

[dandelion]

Hi Rob:

Thank you for having this forum.
I have some questions regarding the relabelling of XAB.

I have attached 2 jpegs for my question.
Referring to pic1.jpg, first I label XAB. Then a higher high form at C with acceptance above ME. If the market retraces such that the price is [LIST=1]

1. below A but at or above D, how should I re-label XAB?
2. below D but above B, how should I re-label XAB?

Referring to pic2.jpg, first I label XAB. Then market consolidates and is followed by a breakout with WPC above ME at C. If the market retraces such that the price is

1. below A but at or above D, how should I re-label XAB?
2. below D but above B, how should I re-label XAB?

Looking forward to your reply. Thanx.

[gassah]

Originally Posted by dandelion »

I have some questions regarding the relabelling of XAB.

I have attached 2 jpegs for my question.
Referring to pic1.jpg, first I label XAB. Then a higher high form at C with acceptance above ME. If the market retraces such that the price is [LIST=1]

1. below A but at or above D, how should I re-label XAB?
2. below D but above B, how should I re-label XAB?

Referring to pic2.jpg, first I label XAB. Then market consolidates and is followed by a breakout with WPC above ME at C. If the market retraces such that the price is

1. below A but at or above D, how should I re-label XAB?
2. below D but above B, how should I re-label XAB?

Hi dandelion,

I don't make a distinction between the two charts. Once a swing accepts below the PSZ of AB it continues to be considered a corrective structure. I wouldn't label either one D until it hits the 78.6%R, though I'm not absolutely certain Ray would agree.

Rob

[dandelion]

Hi Rob:

Thanx for your reply.
I am not too sure what you mean by "I wouldn't label either one D until"?
I might have been too brief in my questions. I have problems re-labelling XAB in order
to calculate ME, especially when market make higher high but retrace great than 78.6%.
I would like to rephrase my questions.

From pic3.jpg, I label cde as XAB to calculate the ME.
When higher high form at f with acceptance above ME, but market retrace to less than 76.8% of ef and turn up at g, do you mean that I can re-label efg as XAB to calculate the new ME?

What happen if the market retrace to more than 76.8% of ef and turn up at h, can I still re-label efh as XAB to calculate ME?

Similarly from pic4.jpg, in a consolidating market between def, I label cde as XAB to calculate ME.
When market breakout with WPC and acceptance above ME, but retrace to less than 76.8% of fg and turn up at h, can I also re-label fgh as XAB to calculate the ME?

How about if it retrace to more than 76.8% of fg and turn up at i, can I also re-label fgi as XAB to calculate ME?

Or should I just shift the blue line at d up to g and calculate ME using c=X, g=A and e=B?


Sorry for the repetition and thanx for your reply.

[gassah]

I'll address the first chart with different labeling. If it comes down to D at 78.6% AB and turns up and you want to see how price behaves around the PSZ and upper ME then I would change the boundaries to BC. If, instead, it continues down toward B then I wouldn't change it yet because you want to use the old PBZ and lower ME. If it then comes back up above the PBZ then I would change it to BC at that point.

[dandelion]

Hi Rob:

Is there a difference if it comes down to D at 78.6% of BC instead of 78.6% of AB?
How should the price behave around the PSZ and upper ME for me to change the boundaries to BC?

Thank you for your replies.

[gassah]

Originally Posted by dandelion »

Is there a difference if it comes down to D at 78.6% of BC instead of 78.6% of AB?

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

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. 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.