Not at all, I was a huge skeptic because I could not relate to much. I actually wrote off astrology as silly for years because I could not relate much with my Western chart. It was to the point of where I would roll my eyes when others around me were talking about astrology.
In my western chart I am a Aires ascendant with Jupiter in Aires in the first house, with tons of fire in my chart and hardly any earth. Apparently this is supposed to make for very outgoing, vibrant, enthusiastic and ambitious individuals who make great leaders (something that does not fit me at all; I am actually the opposite of that). That, added with my moon being in Sagittarius...
My Sidereal chart on the other hand, fits eerily well. I am a Pisces ascendant, with Jupiter in Pisces in the first house conjunct Rahu, with both fire and water balanced equally, and the other elements were a bit more balanced as well. That, added with the descriptions of the individual Nakshatras in Vedic astrology, plus the predictive aspects of Vedic, I was kind of blown away with how accurate it was and how everything fell into place by taking life events and personal challenges into account. It all could be coincidental of course, but to me it came off as a bit too coincidental to dismiss or write off. Vedic astrology even had an explanation for my Te PoLR, (Ketu in Virgo with a malefic Mercury), and my weak Se (little to no Mars energy, plus Mars being in Gemini can give someone ADD, which I have lol).
I'm not saying that everyone's western chart is inaccurate, but for me the differences in degrees made a rather large difference.