The WTA tends to reward first round victories more than they should particularly evident in the qualifying rounds of grand slams.
I suspect this simply shows that women tend to be more realistic than the men about their own abilities and which tournaments will provide the best chance of collecting ranking points. After all if a girl won 16 $25K events she would be ranked at about 80.
The optimum strategy is probably to only enter tournaments that you have a good chance of winning.
Don't really follow that very much, Peter, but maybe it's just me
a) Why the WTA system is / should be related to women's thinking ?
b) Anyway, re the optimum strategy to enter tournaments they only have a good chance of winning when what we have been generally been saying is that winners get less credit in the women's side rather than the men's and early losers get more credit.
To me on the face of it, there is more advantage on the women's side in entering a bit higher class tournament and winning one or 2 rounds relative to winning a lower tournament.
What I am suggesting is that the WTA have had to increase the points available for winning early rounds in higher level tournaments because otherwise women would not enter them. Women would often prefer instead to enter lower ranked tournaments where they would be seeded and stood a very good chance of collecting winners points.
If I was a professional player ranked around 350-100 I would enter big tournaments for the experience of rubbing shoulders with the stars but $25Ks would be my bread and butter.
At present you win 50 points for winning a $25K final, a $50K SF, a $75K QF or two rounds of a Grand Slam Qualifier. A 200 ranked player would I suspect be less likely to meet a someone they couldn't beat in the $25K than in any of the others.