[psandman]

But my point is that there are many different rule books. So declaring a single rule to be the established rule and all others to be "house rules" makes no sense.

I agree that ideally a home game should have a rule book to reslove disputes, but I point out two things.

choosing which rule book you use establishing the HOUSE RULES -- but your initial argument says there should be no house rules.

No rule book I have ever seen is all inclusive of every possible situation that can occur. As such when situations occur in a game that are not covered by the Rule Book you choose to use very often you essentially add to your rulebook. These also become house rules.

The example i use of a card exposed by the dealer on the deal to the button is a good example. You say that it is not a misdeal, because Robert's Rules doesn't say that is a misdeal. However it was for a long time a very common rule that a player could not recieve two consecutive cards, and that therefor this was a misdeal if you exposed the buttons first card. Which rule is the "established" rule and which rule is the house rule. (And some house use the rule that it isn't a misdeal but must be replaced by a card from somewhere else in the deck so as not to give a player two consecutive cards)

In some cases RObert's Rules uses rules that are clealry non-standard in today's poker world for example

[ QUOTE ]
At non-tournament play, a player who says "raise" is allowed to continue putting chips into
the pot with more than one move; the wager is assumed complete when the player's hands
come to rest outside the pot area.

[/ QUOTE ] While i understand that in a previous era this was the common rule (though No limit was much less commonly played) this is clearly a nonstandard rule in today's poker world.

I woudl be very hestitant to simply declare Robert's Rules to be the Establsihedles of Poker.