Elliott wave ABC rules: identify the model before testing B or C
Use a model-specific review sheet rather than applying one generic rule to every A-B-C label.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
A-B-C names components; the letters alone do not tell you which corrective model is present. Establish the proposed model and its internal subdivision before interpreting a deep B wave or a short-looking C wave.
Write the proposed model first
A zigzag is described with a 5-3-5 internal sequence, while a flat uses 3-3-5. These are structural descriptions, not wave interpretations of candles. Put the model name and required subdivisions at the top of the review sheet.
Do not exchange model requirements
The position of B relative to the start of A has different implications in the relevant corrective models. A deep B wave does not by itself establish a flat, because its component structure still needs verification. Check the selected definition instead of rescuing a preferred drawing.
Keep an incomplete C unresolved
In an invented case, A and B have inspected internal evidence, but C has only an endpoint label. The overall correction still has an open requirement. A price near a projected level does not supply the missing internal evidence.
Describe a justified rejection
If the observed structure contradicts the selected model, record that contradiction. A different model must be checked independently. The patterns guide compares corrective families; the exercise here establishes a disciplined order of checks rather than a universal endpoint formula for all ABC corrections.
A drawing contains A, B and C and reaches a familiar ratio. Is the corrective model established?
No. Identify the model and verify its required subdivisions and boundaries. Letters and a ratio cannot replace those checks.
A, B and C: record the parent model before the ratio
The table reuses three independent published examples. In the zigzag, A/C are motive components and B corrective; A can be a leading diagonal and C an ending diagonal under the corresponding definition. In the flat, A/B are corrective and C motive. In the triangle, all A–E components, including C, are corrective. A smaller five inside a correction is not the same statement as the whole component being an impulse. The role names are requirements of the assumed model, not classifications proved by the endpoints alone.
For a separate assumed prior rise 100→130, A=130→120 retraces 10/30, not a mandatory Fibonacci fraction. Zigzag B/A=6/10=0.6 and C/A=12/10=1.2; expanded-flat B/A=1.4 and C/A=1.8. From zigzag B=126, equality projects C to 116 and 1.618 projects it to 109.82; the supplied endpoint 114 does not have to equal either. B=134 excludes the same downward zigzag but is allowed in the expanded-flat outline. A whole motive A rejects that flat; a whole motive C rejects the triangle. No single price boundary or Fibonacci number completes every A/B/C: examine its required internal model and later context.
| Model | A role / length | B role / length | C role / length | Selected B/A ; C/A |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zigzag · 5–3–5 | motive / 10 | corrective / 6 | motive / 12 | 0.6 ; 1.2 |
| Expanded flat · 3–3–5 | corrective / 10 | corrective / 14 | motive / 18 | 1.4 ; 1.8 |
| Contracting triangle · 3–3–3–3–3 | corrective / 15 | corrective / 12 | corrective / 9 | 0.8 ; 0.6 |
Does B=134 invalidate every correction beginning at 130?
No. It contradicts this zigzag, while the expanded-flat hypothesis allows that overshoot and still needs corrective A/B and motive C.