Quoted from DanQverymuch:
And how many entries do they plop down the bucks for to do that?
Not being snarky, I'd honestly like to know.
The implication of course is that a player can eventually "buy their way in."
This is basically a fallacy, often asked by non-tourney regulars. (Not to be snarky back)
Here is why.
In tournaments where players can repeatedly enter or buy in, the same condition exists for everyone. That is, everyone can play as often or as little as they choose. So, money aside, nobody has more chances than anyone else.
It is true that some players may make it in sooner than others (ie spend less), and others may have to spend more time and money to qualify. Regardless, a solid run on several machines must be achieved. This premise is not contestable.
Now with the money aspect, for some players money is no object. But you can't buy skill. Money is ONLY buying the opportunity to play more games. To throw in an analogy or 2, owning the best set of tools does not make one a good mechanic. Owning the best sports equipment does not make one a good athlete.
Can a player "luck" into one good game or keep buying entries hoping for that one miracle? Sure, but most qualifying events require solid play on several games, often 4 or 5 pins. Now for a player to be lucky on 4 or 5 pins compared to all the other players competing is improbable, but it could happen-maybe once in a blue moon.
Now take that same lot of players over multiple tournaments. It is probable many of the same names will once again be in the top 16. The amount of tries may vary compared to the previous tournament, but the same names will likely appear. The tourney databases show the names, and many of the same names reappear in the top 16. There simply is no other explanation for repeat qualifying other than skill.
So, if after throwing in tons of money, a player eventually puts together a run, the skilled player who has not spent much, could probably spend a little bit more time and money and overthrow the lucky one or "rich one".
The money aspect only factors in if for some reason it was known the higher skilled player would have less opportunity to play while the lucky or rich (but less skilled) player could just keep trying to win. The skilled player will not have to throw tons of money to beat the qualifying run of a lucky or rich one. So once that happens, the lucky or rich (but less skilled) player has to decide, do they throw money at it all over again?
Eventually they clue in: This guy is better than I am.
One last scenario is when you have talented players and they have lots of money to throw at a run. They cannot be bought out, but the skill is still present.
Anyway you twist and turn it, skill trumps the Top 16.