Give them to the library.
While I agree with those who discourage you from reading books, I disagree with those who advise that you simply jump in and start trading without having the least idea what you're looking at, much less trading. Unless you want to spend years -- and a not inconsiderable amount of money -- trying to figure it out (the "10,000 hours" thing has to do with mastering the violin, not learning how to trade; if you're attempting to learn by doing, you could easily waste many more hours than that). As to recommended books and how many people recommend what and on how many lists a given book may find a place, you should know that although Steve Nison, for example, made a small fortune on candlestick books, there is no statistically significant evidence of the predictive ability of any candlestick or candlestick pattern with the exception of the "hammer" (also called the "pin bar" by some, also known as a reversal). They are pretty, but that's about it. As for Bulkowski, he certainly put in a lot of effort, but the statistical significance of any given pattern will depend entirely on how the pattern is defined. If the pattern you're looking at does not exactly fit the description provided in his encyclopedia, then the alleged statistical significance of it is pretty much useless. But you've got dozens of books there, and I could go on.
Keep in mind also that most of those who offer their opinions on these books and books in general are struggling or even unsuccessful traders. There are a few on these forums who make consistent money and even fewer who make a living at it trading their own money. It's up to you to decide how much you can depend on the advice offered by the rest, assuming you can tell the difference. However, you are fortunate in that you needn't depend on any of this advice at all, much less what you'll find in a book. Focus instead of what the pioneers did, and by "pioneers" I mean Dow, Hamilton, Rhea, Baruch, Wyckoff, Livermore, duPlessis, Schabacker, Gann, Graham and the rest of those who learned what they learned by studying the market, not what others said or wrote about the market. Not that they always got it right. There were weird things written about the market even a hundred years ago. But there has been very little written since 1940(+/-) that is in any way new. Weinstein's "stages", for example, are lifted in almost their entirety from Wyckoff. Candles have been around for four hundred years. Therefore, again, study the market. Then formulate a few hypotheses based on what you've observed, then test them out to see if they amount to anything. Study, test, practice. Then when you become consistent and you're not thrown by every little pebble in the road, trade with a little money and see how you react to the losses, if any. If you find that your risk tolerance is virtually non-existent, then the paths open to you, though they can be found, will be far fewer.
If you're wondering what's meant by "study the market", I suggest you read the following. This excerpt is only three pages, though it will give you some idea of what's meant by "study the market" -- without indicators, without patterns, without candles, without wavy lines or Technicolor. If you want to read all of it, see
the pdf uploaded to the end of this post. The first three pages, as mentioned, are reproduced below.
View attachment 183530
View attachment 183531
View attachment 183532
View attachment 183533
And if any of this sounds strangely familiar, you'll begin to appreciate the amount of plagiarism that has gone on over the past 80 or 90 years, which the plagiarists get away with because so many of these seminal works were never printed and bound. Schabacker's work, for example, which would have been lost had it not been for his brother-in-law Robert Edwards (
Technical Analysis of Stock Trends), who put the finishing touches on Schabacker's work after the latter's death. Edwards became famous, of course, whether deservedly so or not is up for debate, but at least the work was saved.
Incidentally, the excerpt above is part of a year-long analysis. That's a course in itself.
I just got shivers!
I love the sexy talk. 