- Posts: 634
- Thank you received: 0
RSI Divergences
Less
More
12 years 11 months ago #5659
by WaveSurfer
Replied by WaveSurfer on topic RSI Divergences
hey i like waves so here my two penneth worth.... 
Third waves can have the follow relationships to wave one: 0.618, 1.0, 1.618 and 2.618.
Fifth waves can have a relationship to wave three, or wave one, or the combination of waves one through three.
imo it dont have to be 1.618
Regards,
WS
Third waves can have the follow relationships to wave one: 0.618, 1.0, 1.618 and 2.618.
Fifth waves can have a relationship to wave three, or wave one, or the combination of waves one through three.
imo it dont have to be 1.618
Regards,
WS
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Less
More
- Posts: 92
- Thank you received: 0
12 years 11 months ago #5672
by Broad-rock
Replied by Broad-rock on topic RSI Divergences
This is a really good thread, some great comments and opinions.
It would seem that there are different opinions on requirements for systems based on Elliots.
Wouldn't work if we all did the same thing..
RSI used correctly, like Jackozy has shown many times, is very useful.
It would seem that there are different opinions on requirements for systems based on Elliots.
Wouldn't work if we all did the same thing..
RSI used correctly, like Jackozy has shown many times, is very useful.
The following user(s) said Thank You: remo, WaveSurfer
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 11 months ago #5674
by diver993
Replied by diver993 on topic RSI Divergences
On Grennhill. If you look at the RSI you will see the wave formations quite clearly as the RSI follows the characteristics of the waves and this, in turn, will help with your understanding of EWT. Also, if you use trend lines within the RSI the formation become even clearer. In fact, without using the RSI, labeling wave formations can become very confusing. Hope this helps.
The following user(s) said Thank You: remo, on greenhill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 11 months ago #5697
by Jackozy
Replied by Jackozy on topic RSI Divergences
Hi Diver,
All that really matters is that we each have methods which works for us so as long as yours works for you then that's ok and all's good. I spent a LOT of time a couple of years ago back-testing the idea that a wave 5 top could be confirmed using RSI divergences and the conclusion was that it cannot as they don't always occur. I did this work with another who I consider to be way more advanced than me when it comes to EWT (I learnt a huge amount from this person) and we agreed with our findings.
You wrote: "I disagree with regard to the minimum requirement for a wave 3: if it doesn't make at least 1.618 of wave 1 it is an ABC and not a wave 3. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to make their labels fit their count.
So, let's agree to differ for the time being but, I'm confident you will come to appreciate the validity of these statements in due course"
I'm happy to agree to differ here but I think our disagreement on this will be for a bit longer than "the time being"
It is quite clear in the Comprehensive Course on the Elliott Wave Principle (and other texts on EWT) that it is NOT a requirement for wave 3 to be a minimum of 1.618 of wave 1. The only rule regarding wave 3 length is that it must not be the shortest of waves 1, 3 or 5. Wave 3 can even be shorter than wave 1 (as WS has pointed out) as long as wave 5 is shorter still, though this is rare.
Hope that helps but, as I said, all that really counts is whether our own methods work.
All that really matters is that we each have methods which works for us so as long as yours works for you then that's ok and all's good. I spent a LOT of time a couple of years ago back-testing the idea that a wave 5 top could be confirmed using RSI divergences and the conclusion was that it cannot as they don't always occur. I did this work with another who I consider to be way more advanced than me when it comes to EWT (I learnt a huge amount from this person) and we agreed with our findings.
You wrote: "I disagree with regard to the minimum requirement for a wave 3: if it doesn't make at least 1.618 of wave 1 it is an ABC and not a wave 3. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to make their labels fit their count.
So, let's agree to differ for the time being but, I'm confident you will come to appreciate the validity of these statements in due course"
I'm happy to agree to differ here but I think our disagreement on this will be for a bit longer than "the time being"
It is quite clear in the Comprehensive Course on the Elliott Wave Principle (and other texts on EWT) that it is NOT a requirement for wave 3 to be a minimum of 1.618 of wave 1. The only rule regarding wave 3 length is that it must not be the shortest of waves 1, 3 or 5. Wave 3 can even be shorter than wave 1 (as WS has pointed out) as long as wave 5 is shorter still, though this is rare.
Hope that helps but, as I said, all that really counts is whether our own methods work.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 11 months ago #5698
by Jackozy
Replied by Jackozy on topic RSI Divergences
Hi On Greenhill, sorry for the delay in coming back to you.
You're probably already familiar with bullish and bearish divergences, yes? If not then either visit remo's learning section or just say and I'll clarify those on this thread.
Positive and Negative divergences are very different. I was made aware of these only in the last year or so by a technical poster on the GKP BB called Rcmacf if I recall correctly. I can't remember where he got them from They don't appear too often but can be used to confirm trend continuation and are therefore very important.
A positive RSI divergence can occur during an uptrend where prices drop to form a higher low (obviously during a correction/consolidation in the uptrend such as at a wave 4 or a subwave 2 or 4 of 3) but the RSI drops further and makes a lower low when compared to its level at the previous price low.
A negative RSI divergence is the reverse; prices make a lower high during a downtrend but RSI makes a higher high.
Sounds confusing in words so here's a simple picture in a link: dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20815047/%2B...SI%20divergences.jpg
If you search online you wil find that these are very often confused with bullish and bearish divergences but they are very different and are used for very different things. Bull and bear divs are trend change patterns whereas +ve and -ve divs are continuation patterns.
They're also known as Momentum Discrepency Reversal Points.
Try looking for a pdf of "The Complete RSI" by John Hayden. (If you find one please post it - I'm looking for that myself!).
Hope that helps!
You're probably already familiar with bullish and bearish divergences, yes? If not then either visit remo's learning section or just say and I'll clarify those on this thread.
Positive and Negative divergences are very different. I was made aware of these only in the last year or so by a technical poster on the GKP BB called Rcmacf if I recall correctly. I can't remember where he got them from They don't appear too often but can be used to confirm trend continuation and are therefore very important.
A positive RSI divergence can occur during an uptrend where prices drop to form a higher low (obviously during a correction/consolidation in the uptrend such as at a wave 4 or a subwave 2 or 4 of 3) but the RSI drops further and makes a lower low when compared to its level at the previous price low.
A negative RSI divergence is the reverse; prices make a lower high during a downtrend but RSI makes a higher high.
Sounds confusing in words so here's a simple picture in a link: dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20815047/%2B...SI%20divergences.jpg
If you search online you wil find that these are very often confused with bullish and bearish divergences but they are very different and are used for very different things. Bull and bear divs are trend change patterns whereas +ve and -ve divs are continuation patterns.
They're also known as Momentum Discrepency Reversal Points.
Try looking for a pdf of "The Complete RSI" by John Hayden. (If you find one please post it - I'm looking for that myself!).
Hope that helps!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
12 years 11 months ago #5699
by Jackozy
Replied by Jackozy on topic RSI Divergences
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: remo
Time to create page: 0.168 seconds
