Hi eboard10.
Even more that: Frost & Prechter in their "Elliott Wave Principle" book say that second waves are never triangles. They appear only in 4ths or Bs. This is why I put (A) wave there, so that (B) is triangle in this scenario.
If we consider alternative count where there is (1) instead of (A), then we must be in the beginning of C of (2) now:
This is my second favourite count. However the beginning of this C looks very weak. It might be that we're having nested 1-2's, but counting C subwaves as motive is nearly impossible. Moreover, C being >0.618 of A in this scenario would lead to breaking 20 weeks and 100 days SMAs, as well as daily upper BB. We've been below W20 for ten months already, so breaking it on wave C of such small degree seems very unlikely.
Even more that: Frost & Prechter in their "Elliott Wave Principle" book say that second waves are never triangles. They appear only in 4ths or Bs. This is why I put (A) wave there, so that (B) is triangle in this scenario.
If we consider alternative count where there is (1) instead of (A), then we must be in the beginning of C of (2) now:
This is my second favourite count. However the beginning of this C looks very weak. It might be that we're having nested 1-2's, but counting C subwaves as motive is nearly impossible. Moreover, C being >0.618 of A in this scenario would lead to breaking 20 weeks and 100 days SMAs, as well as daily upper BB. We've been below W20 for ten months already, so breaking it on wave C of such small degree seems very unlikely.