Alternative Elliott wave counts: compare the same bars in two scenarios
Keep each interpretation, confirmation condition and rejection condition separate as new data arrives.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
Alternative wave interpretations are competing explanations of a price sequence. Their value is lost when their boundaries or conditions change without a record. Use a shared input and two separate scenario cards so that each interpretation remains testable.
Create the common header
Record the data source, instrument, timeframe, time coverage and selected range once. Reference that header from scenarios A and B. A comparison using different files or origins needs to say so explicitly.
Write each proposed higher-degree wave structure in its own card. Include the main turning points and the internal evidence already checked, rather than merely naming A as preferred and B as backup.
Give each scenario its own conditions
For A, record what observation would support the next required structural step and what would reject the current hypothesis. Do the same for B. Keep a structural rejection condition separate from a discretionary trading exit.
A new high or low may be relevant without completing the required structure. Do not label a scenario confirmed solely because one desired price movement occurred.
Update one observation at a time
When a new completed price bar arrives, add its timestamp and the condition it affects. Mark a rejected hypothesis as rejected under its stated assumptions. Keep an unresolved hypothesis open when the evidence is insufficient.
If you change the origin or higher-degree wave degree, create a revised scenario card. Preserve the previous version so that you can distinguish a new hypothesis from a successful prediction by the old one.
Retain a limited preference
You may prefer the scenario with stronger documented support, but preference does not establish a calibrated probability or a trade entry. Record why it currently has more support and what remains unverified.
The alternatives guide and range guide provide the next checks. This workflow helps prevent retrospective relabelling from being mistaken for an explanation that existed before the new data.
Scenario A fails its stated boundary. Can you move that boundary and keep the same verified status?
No. Record the failure under the original assumptions. A changed boundary creates a revised hypothesis that needs a new review.