
Ed Seykota turned $5k to $15M in just 12 years.
Here are 20 of Ed's key quotes & takeaways to maximize your trading returns 👇🧵


1) The long term trend
2) The current chart pattern
3) Picking a good spot to buy or sell"







(1) Cutting losses
(2) Cutting losses
(3) Cutting losses
If you can follow these three rules, you may have a chance."


Here are some pillars to his success:
✅ Risk Management
✅ Emotional Control
✅ Execution of a System
✅ Belief in Oneself
Master these.
If you enjoyed this thread:
1. Follow @TraderLion_ for more threads like this!
2. RT the tweet below to share with your audience 👍 https://t.co/6AYNEf9pCS
Ed Seykota turned $5k to $15M in just 12 years.
— TraderLion \U0001f981 (@TraderLion_) April 13, 2022
Here are 20 of Ed's key quotes & takeaways to maximize your trading returns \U0001f447\U0001f9f5
More from TraderLion 🦁
The market’s best investors have made millions from the simple saying:
“Buy right, sit tight”
Sounds simple - but what does “buying right” even mean?
Use TraderLion's 10-Step Ultimate Guide to buying right 👇
By the end of this thread, you'll know how to:
1. Build an objective list of buy criteria
2. Have 10+ real world examples to study
3. Increase your win rate.
4. Increase your profitability
Let's dive in!
Buy Rule #1: The General market must be in an uptrend.
3 out of every 4 stocks follow the market trend both to the upside and to the downside.
This means that if you are buying a breakout in a downtrend, it already has a 75% chance of failing!
It doesn't matter if the stock is in a leading group with an impressive RS line and strong fundamental story.
At the end of the day, market direction is the MOST important factor!
Here's an excerpt from How To Make Money In Stocks by stock market legend William O'Neil:
Here's another video by @richardmoglen that will help you determine if the stock market is in a downtrend:
https://t.co/shD5OjkP6s
Let's move on to #2.
“Buy right, sit tight”
Sounds simple - but what does “buying right” even mean?
Use TraderLion's 10-Step Ultimate Guide to buying right 👇
By the end of this thread, you'll know how to:
1. Build an objective list of buy criteria
2. Have 10+ real world examples to study
3. Increase your win rate.
4. Increase your profitability
Let's dive in!
Buy Rule #1: The General market must be in an uptrend.
3 out of every 4 stocks follow the market trend both to the upside and to the downside.
This means that if you are buying a breakout in a downtrend, it already has a 75% chance of failing!
It doesn't matter if the stock is in a leading group with an impressive RS line and strong fundamental story.
At the end of the day, market direction is the MOST important factor!
Here's an excerpt from How To Make Money In Stocks by stock market legend William O'Neil:

Here's another video by @richardmoglen that will help you determine if the stock market is in a downtrend:
https://t.co/shD5OjkP6s
Let's move on to #2.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?