Why wouldn't the complaint then take the form of, "You broke the rules! Stop it!"?

Because people aren't good at telling their actual reason for disagreement. I suspect that they are aware that the particular rule is arbitrary and doesn't influence the game, and almost everybody agrees that blindly following the rules is not a good idea. So "you broke the rules" doesn't sound as a good justification. "You have influenced the outcome", on the other hand, does sound like a good justification, even if it is irrelevant.

The lottery ticked example is a valid argument, which is easily explained by attachment to random objects and which can't be explained by rule-changing heuristic. However, rule-fixing sentiments certainly exist and I am not sure which play stronger role in the poker scenario. My intuition was that the poker scenario was more akin to, say, playing tennis in non-white clothes in the old times when it was demanded, or missing the obligatory bow before the match in judo.

Now, I am not sure which of these effects is more important in the poker scenario, and moreover I don't see by which experiment we can discriminate between the explanation.