That's exactly how it works.
I always laugh when people criticize the way the WTA schedule is set up, when an almost identical counterpart in the Masters/ATP 500 system flourishes successfully on the ATP.
Please you're not getting what I mean at all. I'm referring to specifically how the Tier Is figure differently into the two ranking systems.
On the WTA:
"The results used to determine a player’s WTA Ranking shall be
those yielding the highest ranking points during a rolling, 52-week
period, and must include a player’s ranking points from the Grand
Slams, Premier Mandatory Tournaments and the Premier WTA
Championships plus the best two (2) Premier 5 Tournament results
for Top 10 Players."
This means only 6 of the 9 Tier Is on the WTA are mandatory in the rankings. Obviously the cherry-picking can get quite bad. The idea is even if you only get 1 point from the Premier 5 (basically just need to show up), you can still use a lower tier-ed tournament to replace that.
However on the ATP:
A player's ATP Ranking is based on the total points he accrued in the following 19 tournaments (18 if he did not qualify for the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals):
The four Grand Slam tournaments
The eight mandatory ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments,
The previous Barclays ATP World Tour Finals count until the Monday following the final regular-season ATP event of the following year.
The best six results from all ATP World Tour 500, ATP World Tour 250, ATP Challenger Tour, Futures Series, Olympics and Davis Cup tournaments played in the calendar year
It's not enough to just TURN UP for the Masters, you need to do WELL to get a good ranking, because even if you get only 1 point from playing the Masters, you cannot erase it from your ranking. It will stay on there even if you have a better result from a lower tier-ed tournament.
So do your research before you jump on my case.