I have to pipe in here in response to your comment about Slick Chick. I have a feeling that you are not fully aware of the playfield shots and rules for this game which seems evident from your description of the game as "just a pachinko game". In fact, it is generally regarded as one of the classic EM's. I was disappointed that I didn't get to play the bank in which this game was located, and I am just posting this in the effort to support this game for inclusion in future Pinburgh (and other pinball) events. There were many other games at Pinburgh this year that I was assigned to play which were much simpler in ruleset and more based on luck than Slick Chick (Ready, Aim, Fire comes to mind).

However, having said that, I don't even see a problem with including the lesser skill oriented games in the bank sets. I think that part of what makes Pinburgh so much fun is experiencing such a wide variety of games that all fall under the umbrella of what we refer to as "pinball". I've competed at Pinburgh 3 times thus far and I fnd that each time I discover fun games that I would have just walked by at a show if Pinburgh hadn't "forced" me to play them in an assigned bank.

If you think Slick Chick just offers a skill shot, some bumpers and a gobble hole, then you don't understand the game and need to read the rules and learn more about the side stationary targets, the top stationary target, the 1-4 rollover lanes, the button rollovers, the behind the flippers rubberized post walls and how they all effect scoring, ball duration, game play and collection of the S-L-I-C-K and C-H-I-C-K bumper letters. If you keep the ball in play for 3 minutes and your most lucrative payoff is the gobble hole, then you are not understanding the game.

While I had to leave on Saturday and did not play in the intergalactic championship tournament, my sense is that the primary gripes posted here were that (a) allowing each player 10 entries led to over demand for game usage and lines that were too long (b) allowing all players, including top players that made the playoffs, to compete made the demand in the post playoffs period even worse and (c) allowing top players to compete made it difficult for lesser skill players to have any chance especially given the opportunity to play 10 entries for top 4 game scores. Perhaps an option would be to limit the # of games played per the $10 entry to, for example, 4 or 5 games per person while still basing the standings on the top 4 scores among the 4 or 5 games played (instead of allowng 10 games per enty). This would reduce the length of the lines and volume of games played both before and after the playoffs are done while also limiting the ability of the top players to fine tune their performance on games via multiple chances playing several of the same games more than once. The $10 entry fee is still a relatively low fee for an entry to play 4 or 5 games, and the $10 is going to charity anyway. I think this might be a nice balance of enhancing the chances for lesser skilled players while still maximizing the number of entries. After all, I think we would all agree that the fact that the entry money goes to charity is a key incentive for ensuring that the number of entries is maximized and it would be counter to this goal to not allow all players who want to the opportunity to enter the tournament.