It looks like I was premature in calling 2571.42 the completion of a 5 wave sequence from the 2191.86 low. Looking at the entire move from 2191.86 to 2637.01, one could make a case for the completion of a sequence. The three waves 2191.86 - 2300.73, 2407.53 - 2571.42, 2465.20 - 2637.01 would satisfy my model, however there are some issues with that count. First, the corrective wave still looks to be as originally labeled, from 2300.73 - 2630.25. In order for the the three waves mentioned to complete a sequence, the first three pullbacks, 2300.73 - 2198.98, 2436.88 - 2360.25, and 2501.57 - 2407.53, would also need to complete a sequence to from the corrective wave, and they fall just short of my model's threshold for that.
Keeping the original count intact, the subsequent move from 2360.25 to the high of 2637.01 does complete a 5 wave sequence, and so it would appear that only three of five waves have completed thus far. Support looks to be 2482.
Looking at the 60 Minute chart, I did update it to reflect the alternate count I had mentioned. The first move down from 3393.52 contained Waves 1, and 3, separated by a corrective sequence. So both Waves 2, and 4 completed corrective sequences.
The Weekly chart reflects my view that 3393.52 completed a 5 wave sequence from the 666.79 low. With a 5 wave sequence down from that high, the market looks to be at an inflection point. Was 2191.86 the low? Or simply a resting point? Things could be interesting from here, as the market always is.
I was asked in a comment recently how and why I turn waves into points for my analysis. Since I sometimes have trouble fitting my answer into the comments section, I'll try to answer it here. First, I do see markets moving in waves. When I started, discerning waves was somewhat subjective. I have attempted EW and other methods, so I tried to incorporate some of that. Through the years I have tried to become more objective in my methods, and I do use several technical indicators to help guide me. Most of my main waves seem to be consistent with more traditional methods, and I have used other counts I respected to ensure my model was not dependent on arbitrarily picking points. At times there is a bit of tracking smaller structures for my counts, and I won't go into a great amount of detail on that at the moment, but sometimes one must look at several time frames to see the entire picture.
So that is a little background on what I strive to do. As for turning waves into points, I don't know at what point I started doing that. I have for a long time looked for an objective way to find the ends of waves. At some point I noticed that visually there seemed to be some correlation between certain waves. Waves seemed to either all get longer, or shorter, but there seemed to be no real relationship between them, when taken as absolute moves in points. Then I realized through some work that the increase, or decrease, in the waves was dependent on the difference in the starting points of the waves. So although I use a linear relationship as the basis for my model, that does not make the moves in the market linear. Looking at waves as points is just the easiest way I have found to be able to use that relationship to extrapolate end points.
That is the easiest way I can describe it. And using the linear relationship is the easiest way I have found to track that relationship. I hope that answered the question. I'd be happy to go into more detail to anyone who is interested. Feel free to comment or email. I will try to address any questions as best I can.
