hard · Elliott Wave Theory alternation
A corrective sequence labeled as a double three (W-X-Y) has just completed at one degree. Within it, the first three (W) was a flat and the connecting X wave was a zigzag. A colleague argues the rule of alternation was satisfied simply because W and X were different corrective shapes.
Why is this reasoning subtly flawed when applying alternation to complex corrections?
- Alternation as a guideline applies between the two corrective patterns of comparable function (W and Y), not between a correction and its connecting X wave; the meaningful expectation is that Y alternates with W
- Alternation is claimed to strictly govern only the narrow relationship between W and X in this sequence, so the colleague is correct and Y is left free to take virtually any corrective form without constraint
- Alternation supposedly does not apply to complex corrections at all, since double-three and double-zigzag structures such as this particular W-X-Y sequence are treated as fully exempt from the guideline by definition
- Alternation is said to require that W, X, and Y must each be a different one of the three corrective families, so this particular structure is only valid if Y specifically takes the form of a triangle
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More Elliott Wave Theory alternation practice
- According to the 'Fourth-Wave Target Zone' guideline, where is a correction most likely to
- According to the Guideline of Alternation, what should you expect for Wave 4?
- A correction targets the price zone of the 'prior fourth wav… — What does this mean in pra
- You see a rally with two identical corrections. Both were zi… — Why might you doubt this i
- Where is the most likely target for the major Wave 4 correction?
- What is the most likely target for the subsequent Wave 4?
- If the analyst wants to project the end of the entire impulse using the 'Equality Guidelin
- According to the 'Guideline of Depth', which area is the most likely target for the bottom