Wyckoff and Elliott: test two hypotheses separately
Examine ranges, springs, upthrusts and volume while independently checking wave structure.
Published: (UTC+3)
Русский · English · Deutsch · Español · Français · Italiano · 繁體中文 · 日本語 · 한국어
All numbers and scenarios below are invented. These exercises check observations and rules; they report no measured return or promised reversal. O/H/L/C mean open/high/low/close; V is volume from the chosen source.
Wyckoff: price, volume and a testable interpretation
Wyckoff examines supply and demand, effort versus result, and cause and effect. Reading price spread alongside volume differs from assigning Elliott wave roles. Spread here means a bar’s H−L, not bid/ask. Between invented bars A and B, volume rises from 200 to 300, or 50%, while spread narrows from 9 to 3.
That divergence permits several explanations; it does not establish absorption or identify large participants. Fix one instrument, comparable sessions and the volume feed before checking later closes against the original range. Cause/effect includes separate point-and-figure analysis: the width of a time-based range alone supplies no price target.
| Item | O | H | L | C | V | H−L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 100 | 108 | 99 | 107 | 200 | 9 |
| B | 107 | 108 | 105 | 106 | 300 | 3 |
Does 50% more volume prove accumulation?
No. Two observed quantities changed; participant identity, future direction and wave structure remain unestablished.
Accumulation and distribution require prior context
The same 100–110 range following 120→105→100 and following 80→95→100 presents different questions. Accumulation interprets inventory building ahead of an advance, distribution inventory transfer ahead of a decline; one sideways shape does not directly reveal either. Reaccumulation and redistribution are alternatives too.
In this fictional study after a decline, freeze 100/110 and a horizon of ten completed bars. Close 111 records an upside exit; a later 99 rejects the chosen hypothesis that the range will hold as support. This is our study rule, not a universal test of all Wyckoff phases. Do not force an A–E schematic using later outcomes; check Elliott subdivisions separately.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 1 | 120 → 105 → 100 | [100,110] |
| 2 | 80 → 95 → 100 | [100,110] |
| 3 | 111 → 99 | H=10 |
Is every range accumulation?
No. Preserve prior movement, price/volume context, later evidence and alternative interpretations.
Spring, test and upthrust without a promised outcome
With the 100–110 range fixed beforehand, invented S has L=98 and C=102: an excursion below support followed by a close inside. It is a spring candidate in an appropriate context. Next T has L=100.5, C=102.5 and V=80 versus S’s 150: a higher low with less volume is compatible with a test interpretation, without proving an advance.
Independent U has H=112 and C=108, an excursion above resistance followed by a return: an upthrust candidate. Calling it UTAD requires its distribution context. Neither springs nor UTAD are mandatory. Before later bars, our exercise selects C>103 by the second bar after S; N with C=104 meets that local condition. Execution, wave completion and sustained advance remain separate questions.
| Item | O | H | L | C | V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | 101 | 103 | 98 | 102 | 150 |
| T | 102 | 103 | 100.5 | 102.5 | 80 |
| N | 102.5 | 105 | 102 | 104 | 180 |
| U | 109 | 112 | 107 | 108 | 160 |
Does L<100 alone prove a spring?
No. Return, range context and subsequent behavior matter; a breach alone does not identify participants’ intentions.
Compare Wyckoff and Elliott in one record
Wyckoff organizes price/volume interpretations in range context. Elliott examines structural position, degree and subdivisions. SOS does not map uniquely to wave 3, nor spring to wave 2. In 100→110→104→116→109→118, proposed fourth-wave 109 overlaps the first-wave price area 100–110, so that ordinary upward impulse count fails.
A separate strength interpretation cannot repair that violation or establish a diagonal. For a teaching strategy, freeze the cutoff, volume source/type, range, two independent hypotheses, rejection conditions and horizon; reveal one bar at a time and retain every outcome. Profitability would require a separate model of entries, exits, size and costs.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 0 | 100 |
| 1 | 110 |
| 2 | 104 |
| 3 | 116 |
| 4 | 109 |
| 5 | 118 |
Can SOS replace impulse subdivisions?
No. It is a different kind of evidence; test the structure independently.