Home game rules - slight rant

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you not heard of "Robert's Rules of Poker"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes i have heard of it. But they are not established rules. They are a single persons rulebook.hile many of the rules he uses are common poker rules there are many different rule books out there -- many which predate Robert's Rules.

Of course if you choose to use RObert's Rules for your game that is fine, but then again many of the rules he uses might be construed to be "house rules" and some may even be non-standard (I was going to pull some examples but when I tried to go to my link for Robert's Rules it looks like the website is down)

[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.

[Aniki72]

Aren't home games more fun when they don't strictly follow the established rules already out there?

[headtrauma]

Part of the essence of a home game is balancing strict adherence to the rules with fair play and having a good time. Being a nit or an angleshooter doesn't make for a good home game. Being an angry ranting nit makes for an uncomfortable and often bad home game.

[Khabbi]

[ QUOTE ]
Are most home game players not aware that there are poker rule books? Do most home games just operate by the seat of their pants and resolve problems only as they arise rather than trying to anticipate possible problems or actually learning the rules or having a rule book handy?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right.

I would say that most (90%+) home games are just a bunch of people who know the basic rules of poker getting together for a good time. They are usually friends who don't regularily study or play the game.

In my group, I'm about the only one who knows the rules, and only because I spend a lot of time on this site.

If it weren't for the other 90% of games out there who don't know the rules, there wouldn't be any discussion for me to read.

So what I don't get is, what was the point of the OP?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
So what I don't get is, what was the point of the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Something more than a "slight" rant

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]

Are most home game players not aware that there are poker rule books? Do most home games just operate by the seat of their pants and resolve problems only as they arise rather than trying to anticipate possible problems or actually learning the rules or having a rule book handy?

As I read the different posts about situations and what to do there is almost always a response where someone asks if you have a house rule concerning the issue. Sombody usually also suggests the poster establish a house rule. I have yet to see a situation (I'm sure they probably exist) that is not already covered by current rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has generally been answered by now, but remember- home games, with all of their crazy rules, came first and people got used to them. Codifying casino rules doesn't mean that they would be THE rules... and they aren't standardized completely, either.

And they CERTAINLY aren't memorized by most casual players, only us poker freaks.

If people are asking about rules interpretations, it's because the rule isn't clear to them AND has affected their game (and could again). Thus, the standard "make a rule for your game" line.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are most home game players not aware that there are poker rule books? Do most home games just operate by the seat of their pants and resolve problems only as they arise rather than trying to anticipate possible problems or actually learning the rules or having a rule book handy?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right.

I would say that most (90%+) home games are just a bunch of people who know the basic rules of poker getting together for a good time. They are usually friends who don't regularily study or play the game.

In my group, I'm about the only one who knows the rules, and only because I spend a lot of time on this site.

If it weren't for the other 90% of games out there who don't know the rules, there wouldn't be any discussion for me to read.

So what I don't get is, what was the point of the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps his point is that we have Robert's Rules, which, although other people have pointed out there are other rule books, comes as close to a standard set of rules as we have in the poker world.

Somewhere in the area of 98.72% of rules related questions we get on this forum are easily answered by consulting Robert's Rules. If you're aware enough of this poker forum to ask the rules question in the first place, perhaps you ought to be aware enough to consult Robert's Rules (or some other rule book) before asking for a ruling.

Then, if you don't agreee with the rule, perhaps one could ask for alternative suggestions, of if its not clear whether or how the rule applies, they could ask here.

So I think the rant is something along the lines of, c'mon, if you're going to play poker, understand that there are published rules and consult them already when disputes come up.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
So I think the rant is something along the lines of, c'mon, if you're going to play poker, understand that there are published rules and consult them already when disputes come up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed somewhat, but we don't want to drive off new HP guests, either.

If and when we get an FAQ sticky with a link to RR, the rant would make more sense.

Besides, how many times have we answered the same question (of any type of question) on this forum? :P

[Khabbi]

[ QUOTE ]

Somewhere in the area of 98.72% of rules related questions we get on this forum are easily answered by consulting Robert's Rules. If you're aware enough of this poker forum to ask the rules question in the first place, perhaps you ought to be aware enough to consult Robert's Rules (or some other rule book) before asking for a ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the questions we get are from the people who know the rules better than the respective "hosts". The problem isn't that the players on here don't know the rules, it's that the various home game hosts have played a certain way and won't change "their" game.

Most of the discussions here are like that. Most home game hosts have a set of "house rules" that they play by but they don't take the initiative to publish them for everyone. They only call on these rules when the the situations occur, just like the OP said.

In close to 100% of those situations, the host doesn't have the first clue that this forum exists.