All the annotations are on the actual chart. No rules are being violated and no other explanation for the wave 1 impulse. If the wave 1 impulse was indeed correction, wave A (Or B if it was a correction) would be lower than 61.8% minimum, but instead we have it at 50% of wave 1. This means Wave 1 was impulsive. With that in mind, Wave A and B are zigzag form with wave C impulsive (3-3-5). Wave C is an elongated impulsive that typically stops at 168.1% of wave A. Furthermore, wave 2 terminates just before wave 1, with a classic ending diagonal that slightly breaches the trendline, which is often the case.
I struggle to find any other explanation for the price action.
Note: The correction is a 3-3-5 flat. Note how wave B never exceeds the start of wave A, meaning this can not be zigzag.
I struggle to find any other explanation for the price action.
Note: The correction is a 3-3-5 flat. Note how wave B never exceeds the start of wave A, meaning this can not be zigzag.
Kommentera:
If I am wrong, please let me know why, I am eager to learn. Thank you for reading
Kommentera:
I believe I am wrong and danV is correct here:
