Dow Theory and Elliott Waves: Separate the Evidence
Compare a declared Dow confirmation test with Elliott structure using two fictional examples and a reproducible research record.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
The same price history can be examined through different questions. These original examples separate trend descriptions, confirmation between series and a specific wave-model check.
Two frameworks ask different questions
In the classical Dow reading chosen here, the analyst distinguishes primary, secondary and minor trends and checks confirmation between the industrial and transportation averages using closing prices. Volume adds context to the description of market phases; it does not replace cross-average confirmation. State the interpretation used rather than treating every later adaptation as an identical rule set.
Elliott analysis asks for a proposed pattern, relative degree, subdivisions and the conditions that would reject it. A Dow primary trend is not automatically Elliott Primary degree, and the names imply no fixed duration. A study combining the methods must freeze its series, thresholds and decision rules beforehand. Agreement between methods supplies a recorded observation, not a measured probability or a complete profitable strategy.
| Item | Calculation or value |
|---|---|
| Dow | P_H / P_L; A ↔ B |
| Elliott | 5–3–5–3–5; n / n−1 |
Can the words primary trend be translated directly into Elliott Primary degree?
No. They name roles in different frameworks. The selected trend definition and the proposed nested wave structure need their own evidence.
Higher highs do not establish an ordinary impulse
Take the invented sequence 100→110→104→113→107→115. Its highs rise 110<113<115, while the two intermediate lows rise 104<107. Those comparisons describe the selected turning points. They establish neither Dow confirmation between averages nor all the internal subdivisions of an Elliott pattern.
Now test a specific ordinary upward impulse labeled 0–5. The fourth endpoint 107 enters first-wave territory [100,110], so this ordinary-impulse candidate is rejected. The higher highs do not repair that failure. A diagonal would require its own position and internal evidence; a different name alone supplies neither. The broader direction observation can remain while this particular wave interpretation fails.
| Item | Calculation or value |
|---|---|
| P | 100→110→104→113→107→115 |
| HH | 110<113<115 |
| HL | 104<107 |
| 4 / 1 | 107<110 |
Which observed price relationship rejects the ordinary impulse?
Wave 4 at 107 overlaps wave 1 territory ending 110. This rejects that model, without proving a diagonal or rejecting every possible upward interpretation.
Confirmation needs the selected second series
Use fictional closing-value sequences A:100→110→105→112 and B:200→220→210→218. A has exceeded its previous 110 high; B has not exceeded 220. The chosen condition requires both series to exceed their own prior closing highs, so it is not met at this cutoff. These are synthetic index examples, not the actual Dow Industrials or Transports, and their different price units must not be compared directly.
A later B close at 223 would add a new observation of its own threshold being exceeded. Record that under a later cutoff; do not rewrite the earlier 218 as confirmation. The example isolates one confirmation test, not a full mechanism for identifying primary trends. Neither joint confirmation nor a later high proves an Elliott count or a profitable trade. Non-confirmation alone is not a demonstrated reversal.
| Item | Calculation or value |
|---|---|
| A | 100→110→105→112 |
| B | 200→220→210→218 |
| A3 | 112>110 |
| B3 | 218<220 |
| B_later | 223>220 |
Does A=112 alone confirm the selected two-series condition?
No. A exceeds 110, but B=218 remains below 220. Later information must be recorded separately, with no automatic claim of profitability.