Q&A With Bob Prechter

av8d

Q&A With Bob Prechter

来自：MACD论坛(bbs.shudaoyoufang.com) 作者：av8d 浏览：9753 回复：10

我不翻譯了, 繁體的翻譯可能大家不習慣,還是看原文的吧!沒多少單字的.:*29*:  


Q&A With Bob Prechter
The following is a compilation of Bob Prechter's best media interviews.
In this Q&A, Bob talks about the validity and practical applications
of the Wave Principle and explains Socionomics, the science of social prediction.
This is a good starting place for our view on the markets,
and it's also a fine primer on Elliott wave theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the Wave Principle?
The Wave Principle is, first and foremost,
a detailed description of how markets behave.
Now, there’s probably more that is not in that sentence than is in that sentence.
For instance, a detailed description of how markets behave does not refer to
what outside events are occurring, such as in the fields of economics, politics,
or social trends. It’s strictly a study of how human beings behave
collectively in the trading arena.

What specifically did Elliott discover?
Elliott’s most important discovery was that the patterns that develop
in the stock market occur at all degrees of trend. The larger patterns are made up of
components that are themselves composed of smaller ones.
The same patterns on a smaller scale combine to create any one of those patterns
on a larger scale. The larger pattern will combine with several others
of the same degree to create an even larger pattern and so on.
He described in detail exactly what those patterns look like.
He identified 13 of them. Only recently has data been available
for general stock prices back to the late 1700s, and the patterns are there as well.

How did he label the “degrees” of trend?
Elliott began by naming a particular structure with an arbitrary label,
Primary degree, a term borrowed from Dow Theory.
The next larger degree he called Cycle, and the next larger Supercycle.
The lower degrees he named Intermediate, Minor, and so on.
We therefore have a way to refer to the degrees of trend that we are talking about.

What was the biggest degree trend he talked about?
Grand Supercycle, which he guessed dated back to the founding of the United States.
Since then, more detailed stock market data has confirmed that he was right.
That’s not the biggest degree, though, as all waves are components of larger ones.

You once referred to the Wave Principle as the “purest form of technical analysis.”
Why?
For a hundred years, investors have noticed that events external
to the market often seem to have no effect on the market’s progress.
With the knowledge that the market continuously unfolds in waves
that are related to each other through form and ratio,
we can see why there is little connection. The market has a life of its own.
It is mass psychology that is registering.
Changes in feelings show up directly as price changes
in the barometer known as the DJIA. The Wave Principle is a catalog of the ways
that the crowd goes from the extreme point of pessimism
at the bottom to the extreme point of optimism at the top.
It is a description of the steps human beings go through
when they are part of the investment crowd,
to change their psychological orientation from bullish to bearish.
That description fits the movement of any market,
as long as human beings are involved, rather than Martians,
who may have a differently operating unconscious mind.
Since people don’t change much, the path they follow in moving from
extreme pessimism to extreme optimism and back again tends
to be the same over and over and over, regardless of news and extraneous events.

What is the basic path?
Very simply, Elliott recognized that movement in the direction
of the one larger trend subdivides into five waves.
Movement against the trend subdivides into a three-wave pattern
or some variation involving several three-wave patterns.
In rising markets, true bull markets, the subdivisions occur in five waves up,
an up-down-up-down-up sequence. Bear markets tend to occur in three wave sequences,
down-up-down. Each one of those movements has a shape and a personality.
As long as you can recognize the shapes that are occurring, you have a handle
on what might happen next.
But the five-wave form does occur on the downside.
Yes, but only as a component of a larger three-wave pattern.
The essence of the Wave Principle is that the moves in the direction
of the one larger trend are five-wave structures,
while moves against the one larger trend are three-wave structures.
From that, you can tell what the underlying trend is and invest accordingly.

You just go on Elliott’s description alone.
Does that mean you must act without knowing what’s causing the pattern?
On the contrary, I know what is causing the patterns: human nature
as it relates to a person interacting with his fellows.
When you ask what outside force is “causing” the patterns,
you are asking the wrong question, so you are already on the wrong path.
Elliott’s description of how markets behave forces you to a conclusion
about cause and effect in social events.
All of the causes most people assume to be operative are not,
such as the latest political speeches or the latest numbers on the economy.
They are simply results of the patterns of mass human psychology.

As simply as possible, can you explain how mood drives behavior?
Mood impels action. An increasingly positive social mood causes people to buy stocks,
expand businesses, wear more colorful clothes and listen to sunnier pop music.
An increasingly negative social mood causes people to sell stocks,
contract businesses, wear darker clothes and listen to darker pop music.
So mood precedes actions. That’s why actions do not affect mood.
It’s the other way around.

Is Elliott’s a mechanical system?
Not really. What we’re dealing with here is the behavior of people.
If the tools you work with measure something other than the behavior of people,
you’ll be removed from the reality of what’s going on. One of the biggest failures,
in terms of approaching the stock market,
is to assume that the market is mechanical in the sense that outside action
causes market reaction, such as the idea that the market “responds” to Fed policy
or the trade balance or political decisions. Others have tried to reduce it
to a sum of periodic sine waves, but always find that it cannot be done,
because the market is not a time-repetitive machine in its essence.
From the standpoint of theory, market behavior is tied to a mathematical law,
but it is just not the same type of law found in the physical sciences.
From the standpoint of practical application,
the Wave Principle is tracking a living system,
which is allowed variation in its forms, in fact, infinite variation,
but limited by an essential form. Whereas a rigid system with numbers,
strict mechanical numbers, never works.

Doesn’t infinite variation imply that anything goes?
Not at all. Trees vary infinitely, but they all look like trees,
don’t they? And you can tell them apart from clouds, which also vary infinitely,
and buildings as well. In fact, despite infinite variability,
they are amazingly similar. The same is true of market patterns.

Does knowing Elliott guarantee profits?
Only the most trained and experienced market participants can act contrarily
to their natural tendencies. I have yet to meet a man who invested
or traded with a completely rational program based on reasonable probabilities
without allowing his greed, his fear, his extraneous opinions
or his irrelevant judgments to interfere. It is man’s emotional side,
particularly his social dependency, that makes him think the way his fellows do,
and when he does that, he loses money in the markets. At least using Elliott,
you have a basis that makes winning possible.

Most people are more interested in how it works than why it works.
Is there any one thing people need to remember to make it work for them?
The key to Elliott Wave patterns is that the market goes three steps forward
for every two steps back. If you do not get scared by the two steps back,
and if you are not euphorically confident after the third step forward,
you’re light-years ahead of the pack. Even then,
I would add that it is one easy thing to recognize
that the Wave Principle governs stock prices,
while it is quite another to predict the next wave,
and still another to profit from the exercise.
There is no substitute for experience,
so that you can learn what you feel and when you feel it,
with respect to market behavior.

Jack Frost has described the Wave Principle as something that has to be seen
to be believed. What does he mean by that?
The principle is complicated to express in words. With the Wave Principle,
you are dealing with a phenomenon that reveals itself visually.
Try describing the concept and variations of “tree” in detail to someone
who’s never seen one and you’ll see that it can be a complex task. Saying,
“Look! There’s one,” is a lot easier.
The human brain is very good at recognizing a pattern visually.
If a computer must be programmed to recognize shapes in the sky,
it would be difficult to teach it the difference between a cloud and bird and an airplane.
Once you have that programmed, of course,
a blimp floats by and the computer is in trouble.
The human brain works differently, however,
and is extremely efficient at pattern recognition.
If you draw out the Principle, it is much more quickly grasped.
Then when you compare actual market pictures with the model,
you can accept the truth more readily.
It is at the perceptual level that it is best presented,
then, not the conceptual.

Can you really teach it?
Sure. Video is an excellent approach, for instance.
A lot of people have learned how to apply it that way.
Some have trouble at first, but then say “Once I saw your video tape,
I understood it all.”

What are the Wave Principle’s key strengths?
Frost liked to say, “Its most striking characteristics are its generality
and its accuracy.” Its generality gives market perspective most of the time,
and its accuracy in pointing out changes in direction is almost unbelievable at times.

Why does the Wave Principle work so well?
Because it is 100% technical. No armchair theorizing from economics
and politics is required.

What are its biggest shortcomings?
There is one main weakness, and this accounts for just about all the problems.
There are eleven different patterns for corrections. When a correction starts,
it is impossible to tell in advance which pattern has begun,
so you do not know how it is going to unfold. Therefore,
the best that you can do is apply some of Elliott’s observations
as guidelines in making an intelligent guess as to what it is.
Another problem is that corrections can do what Elliott called “double”
or “triple” — that is, repeat several times.
Triple corrections are the largest formations possible,
so at least there is a limit. These repetitions can be frustrating
because they can last decades. For example, we had a 16-year sideways correction
in the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 1966 to 1982.
A.J. Frost and I thought it was over in 1974,
and the market was ready for another bull wave.
To be sure, most stocks rose from that point forward,
but the Dow went sideways for another eight years in a doubling of the time element,
which caused some frustrations before the next bull wave finally
began on August 12, 1982.
It sounds like a chess game. The number of possibilities,
and therefore the probabilities of success, vary at certain junctures.
Chess provides an excellent analogy. The market can do whatever it wants,
except that it will always do it in an Elliott Wave structure.
Similarly, your opponent can move chess pieces wherever he wants,
except that he must follow basic rules. On the other side of the board,
you still have a lot of hard thinking to do despite your absolute knowledge
that pieces must move according to those rules.

Are there situations where the Wave Principle does not hold true?
No, it always holds true. But of course, it is one thing to say
the markets will follow the Wave Principle and another thing entirely to forecast
the future based on that knowledge. It is always a question of probabilities.
Once you have hands-on experience with it, once you understand all the rules
and guidelines, it is a lot like becoming Sherlock Holmes.
There are many possible outcomes, but guidelines force you along certain paths
of thinking. You finally reach a point where the evidence becomes overwhelming
for a certain conclusion.

Have you ever had a case where you thought the probability of a certain outcome was high,
say 90%, but the market went otherwise from your expectation? What did you do then?
Of course it happens. But you should never be wrong for long relative
to the degree that you are trying to assess.
One of the terrific things about the approach is that it’s price that tips you off.
With other approaches, price can go a long way before the reason behind your opinion
changes, if it ever does. No matter how difficult the pattern is to read sometimes,
it always resolves satisfactorily into a classic pattern.

Can you illustrate how knowledge of “wave structure” comes into play when trading?
For instance, the bottom of the fourth wave, which is a pullback,
cannot overlap the peak of the first rally. If it does,
then it’s not a fourth wave. The fourth wave is still ahead of you,
and the third wave is subdividing. Knowing this tenet can keep you
out of a lot of trouble that an armchair wave counter would encounter.
Another very basic tenet is that wave three is never the shortest.
It is usually the longest. Wave three is the recognition stage
when most people get aboard.
**** **** **** * * *
R.N. Elliott (in a letter to Charles Collins)
February 19, 1935: “Waves do not make errors, but my version may be defective.”
**** **** **** * * *

But if there is always a correct pattern, and it is only a matter of seeing it,
why aren’t accuracy levels higher than the 40%, 50%, 60% or even the 80% ratios
of hits to misses?
First, just because R.N. Elliott discerned that the market follows rules
as in a chess game doesn’t mean you can predict the market’s next move.
All you can give are probabilities. But the psychological difficulties
are at least an equal impediment. Hamilton Bolton once said that the hardest thing
he had to learn when using Elliott was to believe what he saw. Despite all I know,
I have fallen prey to that problem more than once.
The fact that even perfect analysis only results in the best probability provides
the uncertainty that feeds the psychological unease. As Frost is fond of saying,
“The market always leaves its options open.”
So when you combine human weakness with a game of probability,
the result is many errors in judgment. Nevertheless,
I must stress that the ratio of success with Elliott is better than that
with other approaches, and that is the only rational basis for judging its value.
Besides, the inestimable value of the Wave Principle is not so much
that it provides a high percentage of correct “calls” on the market,
but that it always gives the investor a sense of perspective.

Is it possible that the system merely takes into account every possible pattern
and thus allows the practitioner to force things into a satisfactory wave count
retrospectively — but not prospectively?
No, for two reasons. First, if that were true, then there would be no record
of success such as the Wave Principle has over the decades.
There are numerological approaches to the market,
ones based on fantasy that may as well be dealing with a random walk,
and they produce worthless results, as they should.
As Paul Montgomery likes to say, a good test of a theory is whether it can predict.
Second, there are many non-Elliott patterns that the market could trace out
if it were a random walk; but it has never done it. I have never seen a market
unfold in other than an Elliott Wave pattern.

Do you believe that the Wave Principle provides for an objective form of analysis?
Two different people can look at the same chart and derive very different wave counts.
There are market watchers who say that applying wave theory is a very subjective.
I always ask, “compared to what?” There is no group more subjective than conventional
analysts who look at the same “fundamental” news event a war,
the level of interest rates, the P/E ratio, GDP reports,
the President’s economic policy, the Fed’s monetary policy,
you name it and come up with countless opposing conclusions.
They generally don’t even bother to study the data.
The Wave Principle is an excellent basis for assessing probabilities
regarding future market movement.
Probabilities are by nature different from certainties.
Some people misinterpret this aspect of analysis as subjectivity,
but all probabilities may be put in order objectively according to the rules
and guidelines of wave formation. We are developing a computer program
to do wave analysis, and it can be done only because objective ordering is possible.
Most analysts are subjective most of the time, and the rest are subjective
at least some of the time. But that is their problem and sometimes my problem,
too but not the Wave Principle’s.

Can short-term traders use the Wave Principle,
or is it better for a longer term trading methodology?
It’s a fractal, which means that the same patterns
appear at all degrees of trend.

What is important for market participants to be aware of regarding
the nature of human beings and trading?
Most investors do not have extensive knowledge or experience in the area of investing,
so they look to others to provide direction.
They look at the tape and watch which way prices are going,
they read the newspapers, they listen to financial television,
they go to cocktail parties and talk to their neighbors anything other
than formulating their own personal research, education and convictions.
They are getting their conviction, or lack thereof, from others.
The Wave Principle develops because it’s a reflection of unconscious thought patterns a
nd not the rational faculty of human beings.
People always generate mental visions of glorious worlds when a market goes up
and annihilation when it goes down. The herding impulse creates trends and extremes.
Once you can read Elliott waves, you can forecast probabilities
for any market quite often and usually when it matters.
You can also anticipate broader societal changes. If you know the signs,
you can use them to your advantage.

With the advent of electronic trading, institutions can trade big blocks of stock
in a few seconds, and individuals can trade and invest from their home PCs.
Has electronic trading changed the nature of the markets or the marketplace?
What do you think of this development?
I’ve been watching hourly trends for nearly 30 years, and as far as I can tell,
electronic trading has not changed the behavior of markets one bit.
Electronic trading is a good thing because it takes away the middlemen,
who were either honest but no longer necessary or they were rip-off artists.
Electronic trading can be a bad thing, too, in that it allows impulsive people
to blow through their savings faster by clicking a mouse. On second thought,
I guess it’s better to do it quickly than slowly; the pain doesn’t last
as long that way, and you learn faster.

Do you believe that electronic trading has leveled the playing field between
the individual investor and the institutional trader?
Unquestionably, yes. Now we individuals get an honest fill and an immediate report.
Isn’t that amazing? It certainly is, compared to the old days,
which means every year in history before 2000.

Throughout your career, you have developed and added to Elliott wave theory,
the latest being the field of socionomics. Can you please explain
more about the theoretical underpinnings of socionomics?
Because waves occur, it must be that events outside the market do not impact the market,
because if they did, they would have to be perfectly patterned to produce waves.
So waves must be caused by some mechanism other than events working on people’s psyches.
The best explanation I have is that waves are the product of unconscious minds,
which are impelled to mimic each other because of a herding impulse inherited
through evolution. Social events are tied to social psychology,
but because waves are endogenous the only possible relationship is that social actions
are a product of waves of social psychology, not the other way around.
The fact that notable social events follow rather than precede corresponding stock market
waves, in my opinion, supports the socionomic hypothesis.
The only other explanation for this chronology is “discounting” theory,
which is both venerable and absurd. People cannot see a future that hasn’t happened yet.
The only sensible explanation is that their shared waves of positive
and negative emotions determine the character of subsequent social action.
When you listen to and read general financial media,
do so from a socionomic perspective. Don’t read what it says; see what it means.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

明月照狗屎

真看不懂,中国人真蠢!:mad:

龙门

看不懂，:*27*:

av8d

这篇比置顶的新很多, 是当期的 Q&A, 不看也好, 多看看书.

[ 本帖最后由 av8d 于 2009-2-10 19:25 编辑 ]

海天空

:*27*: :*27*: :*27*: kan  bu  dong

xfcaibing

:*29*: :*26*: :*26*: :*26*:

多空俊秀

这个已经由我翻译了。我博客上及其它网上到处都有:*29*: :*29*: :*29*:

合肥889889

鲍勃·普莱切特访谈录（艾必译，多空俊秀校正补充）

1、（问）波浪理论是什么?

  （答）波浪理论最首要的是用于对市场行为的细致描述，因而它并不包含的内容可能比它实际涵盖的要多些。例如，对市场行为的细致描述就不涉及发生在诸如政治、经济领域以及和社会潮流有关的外部事件。波浪理论仅仅对市场交易范畴的人类群体行为进行研究。

2、（问）艾略特有什么特别的发现？

  （答）股票市场上发展的价格行进模式将在趋势的各个级别上重复出现，这是艾略特最重要的发现。较大级别波浪的各个组成部分本身就是由较小浪级的波浪所构成。小尺度的波浪汇聚而产生与它们形态相同的大尺度波浪，大尺度的波浪与同级别的其它几个波浪组合在一起又形成更大的波浪，凡此种种，不一而足。艾略特极其详尽地描述了波浪模式的类型，并识别出13种。观察最近才找到的18世纪末股票价格的全面数据，相同的波浪模式可见。

3、（问）艾略特是如何标示波浪级别的？

  （答）一开始，艾略特就借用道氏理论中‘主要趋势’这个俗语，把这一特殊结构自行命名为大浪，然后大一级的称为循环浪，更大的称为大循环浪，把小级别的称为中浪、小浪等等。这样，我们就有了一种提及谈论中的波浪级别的方法。

4、（问）艾略特谈到过的最大级别波浪是什么？

  （答）是超级循环浪。他猜想自美国建国起，超级循环浪就存在。正如所有的波浪都是更大波浪的组成部分一样，超级循环浪不是最大浪级。尽管如此，从那时起，更详尽的股票市场数据已经证明了他的正确性。

5、（问）你曾提到波浪理论是“最纯正的技术分析方式”，为何这么说？

  （答）百多年来，投资者已注意到市场以外的事件似乎对市场行进常常不产生影响。我们知道市场是以波浪的形式连续不断地展开，而各个波浪则是通过形态和比率相互联系在一起的，因此，不难理解这之间缺乏关联的原因所在。市场有它自身的生命形式。它显现出大众心里特征。当作为经济生活晴雨表的道·琼斯工业股平均指数表现出股价变动时，人们情感上的变化也会显而易见。波浪理论是人们情绪由市场处于底部时极度悲观向市场顶部时极端乐观变化的一系列轨迹。波浪理论是对交易人群由牛到熊心理定位历程的刻画。这个刻画适合任何市场的运动，只要卷入其中的是人类，而不是拥有不同操作潜意识的火星人。既然人们不会有多大改变，人们情绪由极度悲观到极其乐观并且往复的变化过程就会一二再再二三地倾向于相同，不管发生怎样的新闻和外部的事件。

6、（问）什么是基本布局？

  （答）非常简单。艾略特识别出与较大级别波浪同向运动的波浪细分为5浪。逆大一级趋势运动的波浪细分为3浪模式或包含几个3浪模式的变体。在上升市—真正的牛市中，波浪分量是向上的5个浪，顺序为升-降-升-降-升。熊市中总是出现降-升-降的3浪序列。每个波浪都有各自的形状和个性。只要能识别出当前波浪的形态，就能知道接下来将可能出现什么浪（或就有把握预料接下来会发生什么。）

7、（问）但在下跌时5浪形式确有出现

（答）是的，但它只是大一级3浪模式的一部分。波浪理论的精髓在于与大一级波浪同向的运动是5浪结构，而逆大一级趋势的运动是3浪结构。从这一点，你就能分辨出潜在的趋势，从而能作出相应的投资。

8、（问）你仅提到了艾略特的描述。这是否意味你可能在不了解是什么导致了这种模式的情况下采取行动？ 

  （答）恰恰相反，我了解是什么导致了这种模式：是人的本性，它与每个人都有关，人们之间相互作用。当你问到是什么外部力量导致了这个模式的时候，你的问题本身就是个错误，因此你已误入歧途。艾略特对市场行为的描述迫使你对社会事件的因果下了一个结论。所有大多数人认为在起作用的原因其实不是真正的原因，如最近的政治演讲与最新的经济数字。这些仅仅是大众心理的结果。

9、（问）请尽可能简单地解释情绪是如何影响行为的

  （答）情绪推动行为。一种越来越积极的社会情绪能让人购买股票，扩展生意，穿着更加艳丽的衣裳，聆听更阳光的流行音乐。而一种越来越消极的社会情绪会使人卖掉股票，收缩生意规模，衣着暗哑，音乐低沉。因此情绪先于行动。这就是为什么行动不影响情绪的原因。实际情形刚好相反。

10、（问）艾略特理论是一种机械系统吗？

   （答）不尽然。我们这里讨论的是人们的行为。如果你使用的工具测量的是别的东西，而不是人的行为，那你就会偏离正在发生的事实。与股票市场打交道时容易犯的最大错误之一，是认为外部行为会引起市场反应，如认为市场会“回应”FED政策，贸易平衡或者政治决策，从而作出这个市场是机械的的假设。其他人则试图把其归纳为一个周期性正波浪集，但常常发现并不是那样，因为这个市场究其本质并不是一个时间重复性的机器。

从理论的角度讲，市场行为遵循一个数学定律，但这与自然科学中发现的定律又不一样。从实际应用的角度讲，波浪理论是一个活的系统，它允许形式的变化，事实上，允许无限的变化，但又受限于一个基本形式。而一个拥有数字，严格机械数字的死板系统是不会起作用的。

11、（问）无限的变化难道不是暗示任何情况都可能发生吗？

   （答）根本不是这样。树木有无限的变化，但他们看起来还是象颗树，不是吗？而且你能把它与同样变化多端的云彩与建筑物区分开来。事实上，尽管变化无穷，但结果却惊人地相似。市场模式之间也一样。

12、（问）了解艾略特理论能保证获利吗？

   （答）只有训练有素且经验丰富的市场参与者才能反常规行动。我还没遇见过哪个人不受自身欲望，恐惧，他人意见或者不相干判断的干扰，仅靠使用建立在合理可能性分析之上的完全理性的方案投资、做生意。人类的情感，尤其是人的社会依赖性，使得他思考其他市场参与者是如何做的，当他做法相同时，他就会在市场中输钱。用艾略特理论，你至少有赢的基础。 

13、（问）大多数人对波浪理论如何发挥作用比对其为什么发挥作用更感兴趣。有没有一件事情人们需要记住，以使其为他们服务的？

   （答）艾略特波浪模式的关键在于市场是以进三退二的方式前行。如果你未被后退的两步所吓倒，如果你不是在第三步向前时充满满心欢喜的自信，那你就轻松多了。即使那样，我也要奉劝一句，波浪理论控制着股票价格这一点容易为人所知，而预测下一个波浪，以及从行动中牟利则是另一回事。 关于市场行为，没有东西可以替代经验，经验让你学会你感觉到什么，什么时候感觉到的。

14、（问）杰克·弗罗斯特曾把波浪理论描述为不得不被看见才为人们所相信。这是什么意思呢？

   （答）这个理论用言语很难表述，可从视觉却显而易见。试图向一个从没见过树的人描述“树”的概念与各种变形，是件复杂的事情。说：“看，那里有一棵”，就容易得多。人脑非常擅长从视觉上识别图形。如果一台计算机被设计来识别天空中的形状，教会它区分一片云与一只鸟和一架飞机的不同将是很困难的。当然一旦你让它那么做，，一艘小飞船浮过，计算机就会陷入麻烦中。然而人脑的工作方式不同，尤其擅长图形识别。如果你画出这个理论，它就能快得多得被人理解。把真实的市场图片与模型作比较，你能更容易接受事实。是在知觉层面上，而不是在概念层面上，这个理论得到最好的呈现。

15、（问）你真的能教授它吗？

   （答）当然。比如说，视频就是个很好的办法。很多人已经学会如何运用它。一些人一开始有困难，但之后便说“一旦我看见你的录象带，我就全懂了。”

16、（问）波浪理论的主要优点是什么？

   （答）弗罗斯特喜欢说“它最显著的特点是广泛性与准确性。”它的广泛性常给予人们市场的洞察力，而其令人难以置信的准确性则在于它能指出方向的变化。

17、（问）为什么波浪理论如此灵验？

   （答）因为它是百分之百技术的。不需要来自经济学和政治学理论化的帮助。

18、（问）波浪理论最大的不足是什么？

   （答）它有一个主要的缺陷，能解释由此产生的几乎所有问题。调整浪有11种模式。但调整开始的时候，要事先识别开始的是哪种浪是不可能的，因此你不能知道调整将怎样展开。于是，要理智地猜测调整浪，最好是把艾略特的某些话当作指导方针来用。

另外一个问题，调整可能是艾略特所说的“双重”或“三重”调整，那意味着调整要重复几次。三重调整是可能出现的最大形式，因此，重复至少有个限度。这些重复使人沮丧，因为它们可以持续十多年。例如，从1966-1982年，在道·琼斯工业股平均指数上出现了一个16年的倾斜调整浪。我和A·J·弗罗斯特认为调整于1974年结束，市场已准备好迎接另一次牛市。不可否认，在1974年多数股票已经上涨了，但在市场最终于1982年8月12日启动再一次牛市升浪前，道指却因时间因素又倾斜地行进了8年，到达了2倍的调整时间，导致市道低靡。

听起来象是下国际象棋。可能性的大小以及由此决定的获胜概率在某个交汇处变化着。

国际象棋提供了一种很好的类比方法。除了按艾略特波浪结构行进以外，市场还想怎么走就怎么走。与此相同，除了必须遵循基本规则以外，你的国际象棋对手可以把棋子放到任何地方去。尽管你知道绝对必须根据那些规则来下棋，但棋盘的另一边将如何落子，你还得费番思量。

19、（问）有没有波浪理论不起效的情况？

   （答）没有，它总是有效的。但是，当然，说市场会遵循波浪理论是一回事，要依据这一知识来预测未来完全又是另一回事。它总是一个概率的问题。一旦你有运用波浪理论的实际经验，一旦你理解了所有的规则和指导方针，它就变得象福尔摩斯一样。有很多可能的结果，但指导方针迫使你沿着某个方向思考。最终，你会走到这一步，对于某个结论而言，其依据是不可推翻的。

20、（问）你认为某种结果的可能性很高，比如说90%，但市场走向却大相径庭。有过这种例子吗？那时你做了什么？

  （答）当然发生过。   一种极好的方法是价格能给你警示。用其他的方法，如果它曾给过警示，在你看法背后的理由变化之前，价格已走了一长段。有时候无论解读一个模式有多困难，但它总能令人满意地分解为经典模式。

21、（问）你能举例说明在交易时波浪结构的知识是如何发挥作用的吗？

   （答）例如，作为回撤的四浪，其浪底不能超过一浪顶。如果超过了，那就不是四浪。四浪还在前面，三浪的分浪在运行。知道了这一原则就可以避免在波浪记数时因缺乏实际经验而遭遇的麻烦。另一个非常基本的原则是浪三决不会最短。通常它最长。浪三是可识别的阶段，大多数人都进场交易了。

R．N．艾略特1935年2月19日（在写给查尔斯·柯林斯的信中）说：“波浪不会错，但我们对市场的理解可能有缺陷。”

22、（问）但是，如果总是存在一种正确的模式，它也是唯一所见到的事实。那么，精确度超过40%,50%,60%或甚至高达80%的命中率为什么不会失败呢？。

   （答）首先，仅仅因为艾略特看出，市场象下国际象棋那样需要遵循规则并不意味你能预测市场接下来如何行进。你所能给出的只有可能性。但心理困难至少是个差不多的障碍。汉密尔顿·博尔顿曾说，在运用艾略特理论时，最难学的一点就是相信自己所看到的一切。尽管这些我都知道，但我也不只一次在这上面摔跟头。即使是完美的分析也只能导致最好的可能性这个事实，带来了不确定性，造成了人们心理的不安。如弗罗斯特爱说的那样， “市场让观点开放。”因此，当你把人类的弱点与一场玩可能性的游戏结合起来时，结果便是许多的判断错误。然而，我必须强调一点，使用艾略特理论获胜的几率还是高于使用别的方法，并且，那是判断其价值的唯一合理的基础。再者，波浪理论的不可估计的价值不多，以至于它给市场提供了一个高百分比的正确“号召”，但那也总是给投资者提供了一点前景。

23、（问）波浪理论仅仅能考虑各种可能的模式，因此，允许参与者追溯性地而不是前瞻性地迫使数浪进入一种令人满意的波浪计数吗？

   （答）不是，有两个理由。第一，如果情况确实如此，那么就没有象波浪理论过去几十年来所表现出来的成功预测纪录。针对市场的方法有无数种，许多基于诸如处理随机游走幻想的方法，正如它们所表现的那样，产生了毫无价值的结果。正如Paul Montgomery常说的那样，测试一个理论的标准就是看它是否能预测。第二，如果市场是随机游走的话，则市场会存在许多非艾略特模式。但情况并非如此。我从来没有看到过市场是以不同于艾略特模式而展开的。

24、（问）你相信波浪理论提供了一种客观形式的分析吗？两个不同的人能从同一张图表上得出迥异的波浪记数。市场观察员会说，运用波浪理论是非常主观的。

   （答）我常问“比作什么？”没有比传统的分析员更主观的了，他们把相同的“基本的”新闻事件看作一场战争、利率水平、P/E率、GDP报告、总统经济政策、FED货币政策。你给其称呼，得出无数相反的结论。他们甚至不会为研究数据而费工夫。波浪理论是评估未来市场动向可能性的很好的基础。可能性在本质上有别于确定性。一些人把分析的这个方面误解为主观，但根据波浪模式的规则与指导方针，所有的可能性都可以被客观地排列。我们正在研发一种能做波浪分析的计算机程序，这之所以能成为现实，是因为进行客观的排序是可能的。大多数的分析员在大多数时候都是主观的，而剩下的呢，至少有些时候也是主观的。但这就是他们的问题，有时也是我的问题，但这与波浪理论无关。

25、（问）短期交易者能用波浪理论吗？或则它是一种更适合长期交易的方法？

   （答）市场是分行的，那意味着在趋势的所有浪级上都会出现相同的模式。

26、（问）对于市场参与者而言，弄清楚人和交易的本质，重要性在哪里？

   （答）大多数的投资者在投资领域缺乏广博的知识或经验，因而他们学别人怎么做。他们看带子，观察价格的走向，他们阅读报纸，听电视财经报道，还去鸡尾酒会与邻居讨论，但从不把自己的研究，学到的知识，及自己的想法用公式表示出来。他们从别人那里获得想法。波浪理论之所以发展起来，是因为他反映了人的潜意识思维模式而不是理性思维模式。人们总会当市场上升的时候幻想繁荣世界的景象，而在下降的时候感受到毁灭。群众的推动会产生趋势与极端。一旦你掌握了艾略特波浪，你就能预测到任何市场面临的可能性，及这种可能性何时发生。你还能推测更广阔的社会变迁。一旦你了解了这些信号，你将获益非浅。

27、（问）在电子化交易时代，机构可以在数秒内完成巨额股票交易，个人可以在家中用电脑完成交易和投资。电子化交易已经改变了市场的实质了吗？您如何看这一发展？

   （答）30年来我随时观测着交易趋势，至于我的观点，电子化交易没有改变市场任何行为。电子化交易是件好事情，它取代了中间人，他们可能诚实但不再必要，也或者他们是盗窃的艺术家。电子化交易也有不好的方面，可以让冲动的人们点击鼠标把攒下的钱更快地挥霍掉。另一方面，快比慢好，长痛不如短痛，你也学得更快。

28、（问）你认为电子交易使个人投资者与机构投资者间的交易游戏平等吗？

   （答）毫无疑问是的。现在，我们个人投资者能获得诚实的资料和及时的报告。这一点难道不令人振奋吗？与过去相比，它肯定是一年比一年更加平等。

29、（问）在你的职业生涯中，你已经发展和补充了艾略特波浪理论，最近又涉入社会经济领域。你能更多地解释社会经济中的理论基础吗？

   （答）由于波浪的出现，市场外部的事件肯定没有对市场产生影响，因为如果它们有影响，肯定会产生完美的波形，所以波浪是由某些机制而非事件对人们心智作用而产生。最好的解释是波浪是无意识思想的产物，推动彼此模仿，就象进化过程中的遗传。社会事件与社会心理密切相关，但因为波浪是内生的，所以唯一的可能是社会心理波浪导致了社会行为，而非他因。事实上，按我的观点，典型的社会事件而不是以前相应的股市波浪,支持了socionomic 假说。这个年代唯一其他的解释是“折扣”理论，既古老又荒谬。人们不可能看到还没有发生的将来。唯一有意义的解释是积极与消极情绪的波段决定了后续社会行为的特征。当你收听或阅读大众财经媒体时，请以这样的观点来看。不要仅仅看，要理解。