I'm not going to flame the OP here, it's been done and even he admits he went too far.
Had the OP simply bluffed his way to winning the pot, I'd call that damn fine poker playing.
But he didn't...
What I am going to do is give the viewpoint as a floor (part time at least).
Floor gets called over and as described, I can see the "villains" move as being ruled a call. I have no problem with that. He was trying to get a look at the OP's hand without actually committing to the call.
OP says the other players hand was in the muck but was it buried or laying on top? Or maybe just touching the muck?
In fact, a hand that can be positively identified can be retrieved at management's discretion and ruled live.
Also, Rule One,
Quote:
Management reserves the right to make decisions in the spirit of fairness, even if a strict interpretation of the rules may indicate a different ruling.
And another rule that is available from RRoP
Quote:
8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.
Sure seems to open more options up to the floor, doesn't it?
If I agree with the OP that the other player called, then the other player deserves some consideration as well. If he called, I'm looking for a way to let him compete for the pot, if possible and fair.
Clearly if the cards are NOT identifiable, he's out of luck. But considering the way this played out, a good dealer might keep his eyes on the cards that the other player threw towards the muck pile and leave them be instead of mucking them deep into the pile.
Why? Because it gives the floor more options and he lets the floor make the final decision.
In the best interest of the game means, IMO, making sure the best hand wins and those that angle shot are foiled.
Both players took different angle shots and the floor deflected each one.
In the end, the best hand won based on the information the floor had and how he interpreted that information. He considered the actions of both parties and very likely the record of each party.
I'm not so sure the floor did anything horribly wrong in this case after all.