Wave analysis - page 20
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
A typical error situation
After the figure (L3,L5) has been completed, a new figure has begun. None of the figures of Neely fits the description, but if the designation F3 (in the first wave of a new figure) is replaced by 5, there is an impulse figure; if 5 (in the third wave of a new figure) is replaced by F3, there is a terminal figure. Mentally it is possible to recognize the difference between a terminal and an impulse, but that is not the question.
So one should also switch to a senior gear for further consideration, what prevents one from doing so?
Nothing prevents me, I always consider it in the aggregate and that's the only way to do it.
Here is an example of two zigzags from M5 (magenta) and M15 (bluish) on M1 (red)
In this case, three indicators with the same sampling depth were used, the only difference being that each had a different TF
Here is an example of two zigzags built on M1 (red) with M5(magenta) and M15(blue)
The Neely split indicator is tied to ZigZZ(k) because almost always zigzag DTZ(k) for timeframe T1 = zigzag DTZ(k*T2/T1) for timeframe T2.
In this case we used three ZZ indicators with the same sampling depth only with the difference that each had a different TF
It is possible to use on the same timeframe, but a slower zigzag.
Purely theoretical. While there were three zigzag beams, there was a three, two more beams were added, there was a five, the three is part of the five - there is an intersection of patterns.
Here is an example of how to use this pattern in your case but with the only difference that we simply define that the price in this case should reach the markup indicated by three price levels and it reaches it without using any other patterns for price determination ... and it works well.
And using lower TFs or tick information for M1 you can say exactly where the price will go...or on a pullback it will go up or down...
Purely theoretical. While there were three rays of zigzag, there was a three, two more rays were added, there was a five, the three is included in the five - there is a crossing of patterns.
To complete the three (it is only patterns -ZigZag, Flat), you need the index of completion (L3, L5) or a specific set of notations for the first 3 rays. The given situation is definitely not possible, Neely is a competent cut-off. But for very complex corrections (rays 7,8 in a horrible Flat) there will be a situation described by you: one pattern inside another if there is no x-wave (i.e. there is an error in notation).
Better of course to go down to a smaller timeframe during the flat :).