Wave B up the preferred count?

I am tweaking my projected low to 1860-1870+/- rather than 1850-1860 +/-. Why? (1) 1865 would be a 50% retracement of the rally from 1740 in January. (2) Price-volume support band centers around 1850-1860 but it begins at 1880 where several short-term tops reside. I think those will be pierced. (3) The uptrend line from the 2010 and 2011 tops was broken over a year ago but it was pierced in January, touched in April and likely to be tested/pierced again (will reside near 1880 at end of August). (4) I already mentioned the 200dSMA around 1860 but it is rising about 1 point per day and would be near 1875-1880 at the end of August. Once again, I think that will get pierced and Dow more so. (5) Although I am expecting a larger 50-80%+ retracement of the old 1576 top breakout as has happened every time since 1900, there are numerous topping conditions that are normally met that haven't been yet. (6) The Dow EDT possibility into a final bull market top would possibly be broken if SPX falls below 1850-1860 depending on relative strength so I think it's safer to project 1860-1870 +/-.

All of that along with my previous posts leads me to project an 80/20 chance that the 1904 lows get broken and probably 70/30 chance that low breaks 1880. I'd need to reconsider/cancel that if SPX rises too much or too long above key 1960ish resistance. Likewise, I am currently leaning 60/40 or more that the next intermediate-term rally will test all-time highs. However, due to all the extreme stats and circumstances some of which are discussed in the articles below, I think that test could come up a little bit short and/or happen in a matter of 3-6 weeks.

So, my projections are 1991-->1904=A, -->1960ish=B into OPEX this week, -->1860-1870ish=C into the Fed Jackson Hole speech Aug 29 or the FOMC meeting Sep 17, 1960-2020=Final significant high in Oct/Nov before SPX retests the January 1740 low at a minimum and likely the 1600s before. Obviously, any deviation of my projections by more than 0.5-1.0% will be reason for re-evaluation of the scenario. Good fortune.
*********************
http://www.mcoscillator.com/learning_center/weekly_chart/2nd_presidential_years_are_different/
This article favors a probable retest of the January 1740 low in September, but we all know history only rhymes, not repeat so my scenario above would be within a standard deviation of the norm. However, the article also favors a strong 2015. But, I'd like to add that the last 2 presidential 3rd years (one of which was a 2nd term) were not good...2011 and 2007. So, the rule of recency might favor a smaller-than-average dip now followed by a bad 2015. Only time will tell.

http://www.safehaven.com/article/34778/how-low-do-stocks-go-from-here
Some people will mock me for posting a Robert McHugh article. I have never subscribed to him and he was overly bearish at times early in the bull market, but while he perhaps stuck too long to a failed 15-year megaphone final wave E, he turned bullish favoring new all-time highs 10-20% above the 2007 highs a lot earlier than most so I give him credit. Even now, he is expecting 1 more high very similar to Tony Caldaro who has called the current bull market better than anybody I've followed. I wouldn't bet too hard against these guys, but I could see a failed retest and I could see Tony's Primary 3 be later revised to a completed ABC with count change to a large irregular flat or megaphone. SPX would need to break well below 1400 before that could be confirmed so this is not something we can really trade by until 2015-2016.

http://static.safehaven.com/pdfs/long_2014_08_10.pdf
Lots of interesting stat extremes mentioned in this article and most of them only got worse in the weeks after the publication date. The T-Theory Confidence Indicator supports the stats in this article that risk-off has been taking place and portends much lower levels for SPX. My finding about bull markets that exceed previous all-time highs by 10%+ since year 1900 also favors a much larger correction (50-80%+ retracement of 1576-->1991+) and sooner rather than later since I believe this to be the longest rising case of the 5 or 6 examples I found.