Elliott wave rules: the third wave need not be the longest
Work through an invented sequence where wave three is shorter than wave one but longer than wave five.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
A common mistake changes the rule that wave three must not be the shortest into a demand that it must always be the longest. Test the actual relationship instead. This exercise examines selected price conditions rather than confirming a complete impulse.
Use one consistent price scale
Take the invented upward sequence 100, 120, 110, 128, 122, 134 as the origin and proposed ends of waves 1 through 5. The advancing price lengths are 20, 18 and 12. All calculations use the same quoted price units.
Compare the relevant three lengths
Wave three has length 18. It is shorter than 20 but longer than 12, so it is not the shortest. The same ordering also holds for the percentage moves in this exercise. Rejecting it solely because wave one is longer would apply an invented rule.
Check the other visible boundaries
The second-wave endpoint at 110 remains above the origin at 100. The fourth-wave endpoint at 122 remains above the first-wave endpoint at 120. These endpoint checks do not reveal every intrabar extreme or the required internal subdivisions.
Distinguish a check from confirmation
Keep the result as a completed comparison of selected prices on a synthetic candidate. To establish the full ordinary impulse, inspect its internal structure and context. A usual tendency, such as an extended third wave, must not replace the precise rule being tested.
Does length 18 fail just because the first wave has length 20?
No. With the fifth at length 12, the third is not the shortest. Other model requirements still need independent checks.