Thanks for the excellent analysis as always!
When I first came across the EW theory (just a few months ago
) , I had the impression that the individual analyst intuition had to play a major role in wave labeling and identification of waves personalities.
Your methodology however seems to also make use of an extremely rigorous mathematical analysis, with several different counts and sub-counts, strict invalidation levels, etc... it seems a huge amount of work, especially when you start to go deep in the sub-sub-waves counts!!
So my question is - how big a role do experience and intuition play [if any] in the EW analyst work? Is there a point after which you can start to "read" wave counts and select the most likely one out of many, prior that strict invalidation levels come into play?
When I first came across the EW theory (just a few months ago
) , I had the impression that the individual analyst intuition had to play a major role in wave labeling and identification of waves personalities. Your methodology however seems to also make use of an extremely rigorous mathematical analysis, with several different counts and sub-counts, strict invalidation levels, etc... it seems a huge amount of work, especially when you start to go deep in the sub-sub-waves counts!!
So my question is - how big a role do experience and intuition play [if any] in the EW analyst work? Is there a point after which you can start to "read" wave counts and select the most likely one out of many, prior that strict invalidation levels come into play?