# MAP Waves 5 – MAP Wave Rules

MAP Waves follows the following simple rules.

For upwaves;
Pivot 0 Bottom of Wave.
Pivot 1 must be greater or equal to pivot 0.
Pivot 2 must be greater than or equal to pivot 0 AND less than or equal to pivot 1.
Pivot 3 must be greater than or equal to pivot 1.
Pivot 4 must be greater than or equal to pivot 2 AND less than or equal to pivot 3
Pivot 5 (top of wave) must be greater than or equal to pivot 3.

For downwaves the opposite;
Pivot 0 Top of Wave.
Pivot -1 must be less than or equal to pivot 0
Pivot -2 must be greater than or equal to pivot -1 AND less than or equal to pivot 0.
Pivot -3 must be less than or equal to pivot -1.
Pivot -4 must be greater than or equal to pivot -3 AND must be less than or equal to pivot -2.
Pivot -(bottom of wave) 5 must be less than or equal to pivot -3

Those of you familiar with EW will see this is what EW practitioners would call an abc correction.

In order to filter our "noise" a rule break is deemed OK if one wave scale bigger follows the rules.

From the rules you can get another viable count such as the one shown below as well as many, many more!.

This is why you CANNOT use wave counting on its own as an investment methodology! There are many subjective ways which give subjective results!

However with MAP Wave Analysis you overcome this problem by using forks to measure waves to increase the probabilities strongly in your favour through a method based pivot selection and fork placement.

### 3 Responses to MAP Waves 5 – MAP Wave Rules

1. Mare Imbrium says:

So either I’m misunderstanding or getting the joke.
If we graph a series such as:
[1,1,1,1,]

There are very few ways to draw the pivot points that are incorrect.
I could have all 5 pivot points on any point in the series without breaking the rules, this allows you to draw your waves any way you like in order to make it look like your waves work.

I’ve been reading Martin Armstrong for a long time and I’ve been writing my algorithms and trading software for a while now. I’ve caught a few of Armstrongs tricks, but in general I still think he’s legitimate. What’s your opinion?

I’m perfectly happy to keep your secret, but I’d love to hear anything you’d be willing to say quietly about Armstrong,
Lets talk?
Matt Kraemer
Dunedin, New Zealand

• Marc says:

Yes you are absolutely correct as you describe BECAUSE you can measure an amplitude as the last sentence says, but at a guess you did not read that far as you would have had the answer to your question 🙂

So sorry to disappoint you – no hidden secret!

I would strongly suggest you get to understand waves and Martin has much better stuff on it than I do, here I have tried to offer my simplified interpretation and understanding!
MA has an incredible understanding of the inter-relationships way beyond anyone else I have read. He clearly is a very low risk trader with minimal trades.

Clearly your algorithms dont work as otherwise you would not be here. The reason is simple as I have stated numerous times on the PEI forum as well as here – they all based on the past and hence are of no value for projections!

The idea is actually constructive criticism and I certainly dont have all the magic answers so you at the wrong place.

• Marc says:

I am not a fan of “private conversations” as it goes against my beliefs of maintaining an open mind, and we must have the courage to stand behind our thoughts so that we can through learning change our views. If you cannot say it in the open then don’t bother saying it!

The reversals are basically the same concept as my wave confirmations – They are a pretty accurate reflection of peoples behaviour – think about it – if it goes breaks a previous pivot either I am wrong and exit or use it as an entry point – that is as simple as most people trade!
I use actual fractal highs and lows as opposed to closes or anything else because that is the theory of fractal waves. The problem with that though is that you need to filter out noise and as described above, not only can you have multiple count options as you imply to show what you want … but you cannot confirm counts until after the fact. That is largely irrelevant so long as the system has tight stops and that is why you need to follow subwaves.
So the problem with MA’s reversals is as follows – 4 are generated from the pivots and it is perfectly obvious that they are multiple fractal reversals. So you need a filter which Martin recently described as I had outlined in trading reversals – the fractal nature of waves means when you have common numbers on multiple fractals those are the important ones.

The arrays you need to use in the same way as they too contain multiple fractals and you need to filter them out. You can clearly see with the arrays they have largely a 5 wave count between extreme highs and lows and this in my opinion is because the past is being reflected into the future.
The problem with them though is as with all your algorithms they are based on the past and are just algorithms projecting passed behaviour into the future. In theory and from my use of them they are a good guide, but to make claims of having successfully projected timing accurately I have seen no evidence for that beyond you can always pick one to show what you want. This does not mean they are of no value! They give you a road map and must be used for that, and I imagine and from Martin’s explanations you MUST look for alignment in multiple instruments for higher probability turning points hence if 50 different instruments – currency, market, bonds, and not just the same shares in one index or sector, then you are getting alignment and that will give higher probabilities of accuracy.
One thing I don’t understand is why lump all the models together. Some models are looking for tops, whilst others are looking for bottoms so logically to me why not just separate them out, but I imagine that has been tried and still has the same issues of multiple fractals.