Chopping a WSOP bracelet, but doing it the worst way possible. The 97 $1.5k 7 Card Stud

While digging through old news archives, I came across a fascinating story from the 1997 WSOP Event #4 - $1,500 Seven Card Stud. You can check out the official event report.
https://www.conjelco.com/wsop97/event4.h...

Dealmaking at the WSOP wasn’t new. If a deal was made, it was usually done behind closed doors with Jack Binion helping along, and the players would still battle it out for the bracelet. Early on, Binion frowned on dealmaking, but the reality was that it still happened. Take the 1972 WSOP Main Event as an example. When the tournament got three-handed, Doyle Brunson started seeing all the cameras and media attention and got nervous, both for his privacy and the taxman. He convinced Puggy Pearson to chop up the remaining chips and let Amarillo Slim take the title, figuring Slim was the perfect character to promote poker. When Jack Binion got wind of this, he tried to shut it down, fearing that if word got out, it would discredit the entire event. Doyle refused to back down, saying he didn’t want the title. Eventually, a compromise was reached, Doyle took $40K and “officially withdrew” due to a supposed stomach ache. Whether Puggy really tried to beat Slim after that is up for debate, but Slim ended up winning and went on a press tour that helped poker grow. There are likely countless other examples of dealmaking over the years. In 1975, for instance, Sailor Roberts and Bob Hooks who were roommates agreed to split the $210K prize pool but had to keep it a secret from Benny Binion.

This story, though, is different. This wasn’t just a prize split it was about outright giving away a bracelet for more money. While it's suspected that some sort of deal was made when the tournament was four-handed, things really took a turn after Tom McEvoy busted in 3rd place. A 10-minute break was taken, during which the heads-up deal allegedly went down. When play resumed, Maria Stern (185K) and Adam Roberts (200K) were nearly even in chips. Roberts wins the first hand heads up as it went to showdown and she couldn't beat his board. Now at a 3:1 chip disadvantage Stern then goes to win the next 15 of 16 hands. They played 48 hands of poker.

Only 2 hands went to showdown (the first and last hand).
1 hand made it to Sixth Street (Stern won).
5 hands went to Fifth Street (Stern won all).
9 hands went to Fourth Street (Stern won all).
Roberts won 9 hands on Third Street.

Ok...maybe just running bad. But here is the real kicker, five times Roberts was dealt an Ace as his door card against a lower card from Stern. He folded four of those times on third street. That is just not a thing in Heads Up Stud. One of the last times he did it he was down to maybe 13k chips with a 3k ante, 5k bring in, and 20k/40k limits. Stern gets dealt a Jack and brings in, Roberts folds his Ace leaving only 10k behind. This is just beyond absurd.

Now Stern and Roberts might have gotten away with it if it wasn't for the reporting of Tom Sims. In 97 the poker newsgroups blew up with accusations of a bought bracelet. You can read about some of those discussions from back then.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling...
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling...
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling...
Mason chimes in https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling...

The early consensus? Her husband, Max Stern, brokered the deal heads-up, essentially buying his wife a WSOP bracelet. Jack Binion was reportedly furious. The "Year of the Woman" narrative had been building after Linda Johnson won the Razz event earlier that week, and a fixed Seven Card Stud final completely derailed that marketing opportunity. A few weeks later, CardPlayer Magazine got a quick interview with Maria Stern, where Linda Johnson directly asked her about what happened.Stern admitted:

"Roberts indicated that the money was more important to him than winning the title. I felt just the opposite. Subsequently, a deal was made between us that involved more than just the distribution of money—it included the bracelet as well."
"The deal was made in the heat of the battle and without enough thought as to the negative ramifications to the poker industry that could result from it."

Like most things some people go overboard about it and claim that it bring the downfall for tournament poker. I believe most think "Well its the players money they should be able to do whatever they like with it" and it shouldn't matter until someone starts sponsoring the prize pool. It gets brought up and overdramatized for the next few years as the WSOP circles the drain. Magically the whole thing is basically forgotten about when the boom happens. It never gets any press, you won't find many stories about it. But that there was one of the first times someone publicly came forward admitting a WSOP title was settled and not won outright. I'm sure this has been done other times before and since, but this is the benchmark for how not to do it.