I have decades of journals that show me 95% of these trades would have lost by anticipating. Reaction is just being a robot as you have rules to do whatever the next step is to do.
You know I am not good at chart reading.I dont see how reacting can be for losers. It is something that must be done if trading a discretionary method. I think the question is if there is room for anticipatating (predicting) a certain outcomes based on what you see in the price action. I am refering to price action indicative of accumulation / distribution. Can you even make such a judgement without seeing the confirmation (breakout) first and then reacting?


Handle has good reaction, so no need to anticipate.Maybe you've spent decades anticipating the wrong price at the wrong time.
Anyway, whether you anticipate or react, it takes a lot of practice and actually understanding of what causes the changes in price. Is it random due to random people buying and selling or some big fish buying/selling? How do you learn?
Anticipation and reaction are both very useful. Both are operational bar-by-bar and assert their dominance depending on context.
Anticipation is distinct from predicting.
Predicting is a static state that values the map more than the territory.
Reaction is a malleable state that is counter-intuitive depending on experience. The less experience, the more counte-intuitive. The reaction state values the territory more than the map.
Anticipation, when distinct from predicting, creates simultaneous possible future into now scenarios.
This state values a balance between the map and the territory. In essence, it’s a dynamic state that is in a constant feedback loop of refinement.
As the future comes into now, what’s happening now (territory) informs developing scenarios (refining the map).
Predicting weights one scenario at the expense of present time signals of other developing scenarios.
Automation, mechanically creates a field of anticipated scenarios and the reaction to those scenarios. The quality of anticipation is influenced by the map one has of the territory.
All internal maps can be refined through time as external conditions change provided that there is a mechanism of feedback.
Failing to refine one’s map on market structure and operation leads to ‘less than.’
Continually updating and refining one’s map on market structure and operation leads to ‘more than.’
Korzybski’s ‘Science and Sanity’ popularized the concept “the map is not the territory.”
Have you read John Magee's General Semantics of Wall Street? I suspect you'd enjoy it, particularly the discussion of maps and territories as applied to the markets.