If however a wave does not quite look relative, looks too small, but a series of smaller scale waves have occurred within it like your picture then I do consider it countable. So X-Y would not have been a yellow wave if price went directly from X-Y. Price did however get from X-Y with a series of price movements traceable on the smaller scale making the move from X-Y 'bigger' if you see what I am saying.

I think the answers to the rest of your text has now already been answered above.

Theo

I have written a few guidelines on identifying and drawing waves of the same scale on the one chart, so as to have a repeatable procedure to follow. One of the guidelines is, 'a larger scale wave cannot share a smaller scale wave's swing high and swing low'.
The guideline has been working well until just recently. I have come across a few examples where I have found it difficult to seamlessly combine waves of the same scale. One such example I have sketched out in the attached image.

In the image, the wave 'x' to 'y' is not large enough to be a yellow wave. To draw the yellow wave from '1' to '2' would make it of the same magnitude as the next higher scale wave. How would you resolve the issue? Would you draw it as in inset 'A'; inset 'B' or draw the yellow wave such that it would be the same magnitude as the larger scale wave?

Actually, I have noticed on some of your waveEFX charts that a brown wave often shares the same swing high to swing low as a black wave; so at the end of the day, does it matter?

I am leaning toward thinking that as long as the majority of the waves of a defined scale are relative in terms of their magnitude, the odd wave that doesn't fit, should not be cause for concern. My solution is to avoid replicating the larger scale wave (purple wave) and go with either one of the inset (A or B) work-around as the smaller yellow wave would only be covering the trigger scale waves. Is that an appropriate compromise?

Pepe.

** ** Register Here for Free Membership to see this image/link ** **