- Posts: 3158
- Thank you received: 0
GKP
13 years 1 month ago #4192
by remo
hi jackozy
That 194 area is a good support level. Since the price took 7 trading days to re-attempt the same area may still imply strength of 194. If the price tested the same area a few days apart then re-tested it then a better chance of it going through. Since its been more than 7 trading days since the last test it may still hold but as you say that area has been weakened. I would not be comfortable going long at the 194 area.I would be more comfortable at the 61.8 fib level like you.Also that just so happens to be breakout point.
regarding your waves .
those 2 test of the 195 and 194.11 may have completed an ABC correction as the 194.11(your A) was slightly lower than the 195(your W) so could be classed as complete. Unless my chart is wrong???
Any way as you know i only do Elliott on indexs and currency
This is all yours.

That 194 area is a good support level. Since the price took 7 trading days to re-attempt the same area may still imply strength of 194. If the price tested the same area a few days apart then re-tested it then a better chance of it going through. Since its been more than 7 trading days since the last test it may still hold but as you say that area has been weakened. I would not be comfortable going long at the 194 area.I would be more comfortable at the 61.8 fib level like you.Also that just so happens to be breakout point.
regarding your waves .
those 2 test of the 195 and 194.11 may have completed an ABC correction as the 194.11(your A) was slightly lower than the 195(your W) so could be classed as complete. Unless my chart is wrong???
Any way as you know i only do Elliott on indexs and currency
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 years 1 month ago #4193
by diver993
screencast.com/t/vS1dIkteHcj
Jacko, charts look pretty similar huh? I'm still expecting this to go to 185 minimum, and possibly to 177 extension where there is support.
Jacko, charts look pretty similar huh? I'm still expecting this to go to 185 minimum, and possibly to 177 extension where there is support.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jackozy, Wreckless Eric
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 years 1 month ago #4194
by GGOK
Replied by GGOK on topic GKP : warning fundies bit!
Hi
Remo: close your eyes and ears, it's fundamental stuff!
I found this write up which is based on the RNS today.
www.iii.co.uk/articles/75604/gulf-keysto...legal-dispute-update
Interesting.
Gee
Remo: close your eyes and ears, it's fundamental stuff!
I found this write up which is based on the RNS today.
www.iii.co.uk/articles/75604/gulf-keysto...legal-dispute-update
Interesting.
Gee
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Less
More
- Posts: 61
- Thank you received: 0
13 years 1 month ago #4195
by Wreckless Eric
Replied by Wreckless Eric on topic GKP
Hi diver 993,
Looking at your longerterm chart, I see a 3,3,3,3,3 (EW 5x3 diverging formation) since the 141 breakout
The present final 2 of final 3 may well be lower before the final up ? (280 - 320 ?)
141 - 320? Being wave B ? With final wave C down to come,imo
Good luck to all traders and longterm holders in Gkp, it,s going to get volatile as Remo says
Please make your own minds up, from a cool Korea have a good day.
Looking at your longerterm chart, I see a 3,3,3,3,3 (EW 5x3 diverging formation) since the 141 breakout
The present final 2 of final 3 may well be lower before the final up ? (280 - 320 ?)
141 - 320? Being wave B ? With final wave C down to come,imo
Good luck to all traders and longterm holders in Gkp, it,s going to get volatile as Remo says
Please make your own minds up, from a cool Korea have a good day.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 years 1 month ago #4199
by Jackozy
Remo, you could be right about that slightly lower low....but...that would make for a very small wave C in comparison to the same degree wave A, no? It would also suggest a wave C with only 3 subwaves which isn't right (unless it's a wave W, Y or Z) 
Diver, yes, it seems our recent views coincide however, I note that you (and Wreckless Eric too it seems) are counting the move down from 450p to 141p as a wave A down implying a low much lower than 141p to come later on. I have 141p as the low of a wave W with wave Y ending at on orthodox low (not a price low) at 161p. I'll try and post a chart showing this later on.
Wreckless Eric, I think most of us seem to be in agreement that it's shaping up for a move to the gap at 339p in the coming months. You're also expecting that to be followed by a retrace below 141p if I read you post correctly? That might finally break the backs of all the long term fundamentalists if it were to happen!
Diver, yes, it seems our recent views coincide however, I note that you (and Wreckless Eric too it seems) are counting the move down from 450p to 141p as a wave A down implying a low much lower than 141p to come later on. I have 141p as the low of a wave W with wave Y ending at on orthodox low (not a price low) at 161p. I'll try and post a chart showing this later on.
Wreckless Eric, I think most of us seem to be in agreement that it's shaping up for a move to the gap at 339p in the coming months. You're also expecting that to be followed by a retrace below 141p if I read you post correctly? That might finally break the backs of all the long term fundamentalists if it were to happen!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
13 years 1 month ago #4201
by Jackozy
OK, here's how I see the corrective move from 450p:
dl.dropbox.com/u/20815047/GKPcorrectioncount19_02_13.gif
It makse sense to me for the severity of the zigzag down to 141p to be balanced by a bullish flat. It also makes sense that the correction is at least a double three (possibly a triple three) as the drop was so fast that it really needed extending timewise.
I had previously thought that all wave Cs must consist of 5 subwaves but I've since discovered that they can have the corrective form only when they're in wave W, Y or Z positions (they can also be triangles but only as the last move of a double or triple three and there's clerly no triangle anyway).
dl.dropbox.com/u/20815047/GKPcorrectioncount19_02_13.gif
It makse sense to me for the severity of the zigzag down to 141p to be balanced by a bullish flat. It also makes sense that the correction is at least a double three (possibly a triple three) as the drop was so fast that it really needed extending timewise.
I had previously thought that all wave Cs must consist of 5 subwaves but I've since discovered that they can have the corrective form only when they're in wave W, Y or Z positions (they can also be triangles but only as the last move of a double or triple three and there's clerly no triangle anyway).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: remo
Time to create page: 0.215 seconds
