Poker Player Loses £100,000 Lawsuit Against Hippodrome Casino Ban
Posted on: May 18, 2026, 10:24h.
Last updated on: May 18, 2026, 10:26h.
- Poker player loses £100,000 lawsuit against London’s Hippodrome Casino
- Casino ban followed complaints about controversial “hit-and-run” poker strategy
- Judge rejects racial discrimination and breach of contract allegations
A poker player who was banned from London’s Hippodrome Casino has lost his claim for £100,000 (US$134,000) against the venue for breach of contract and racial discrimination.
Dr. Mortaza Sahibzada sued the Hippodrome after he was “barred from entering or gambling” there in September 2023, after other players complained that he “cashed out” too quickly.
In his lawsuit, Sahibzada characterized these opponents as “racist” wealthy “playboys,” and complained management was too quick to take their side in the argument.
“They don’t like foreigners winning, which is how they see me – although I’m not actually a foreigner,” he told Judge Andrew Holmes at Central London County Court, as reported by The Telegraph.
Hit and Run?
According to Sahibzada, he played a “highly disciplined strategy,” which would involve leaving a cash game after winning around £75 (US$100). While not expressly stated in local reporting, Sahibzada was almost certainly using a strategy known as “short-stacking” – a style widely unpopular with regular cash game players.
This involves buying-in with a relatively small stack — often 20–40 big blinds, instead of the standard 100 – and waiting for a spot to move all-in in the hope of doubling up. The strategy reduces the depth and creativity of the game, cutting down on post-flop play and forcing the deeper stacks to play tighter.
Meanwhile, leaving the table the moment you win a big pot – a “hit and run” – is not against the rules, but it’s a breach of poker etiquette that’s unlikely to endear to your peers.
Sahibzada claimed that by banning him, the casino was denying him the right to practice his “professional occupation,” which earned him £2,000 (US$2,700) per month.
“I was making a living, and I became really good in my niche, which was to play for very short hours and to have a very modest target,” he told the judge.
‘Unpleasant Interactions’
But Harry Stratton, the Hippodrome’s barrister, said the plaintiff had been banned after “a number of unpleasant interactions with staff and concerns about problem gambling.”
“The breach of contract claim is bound to fail,” Stratton told the judge. “It is not clear on what basis he says he has a legal right to gamble at Hippodrome, particularly in circumstances where Dr Sahibzada explicitly acknowledges the casino’s ‘statutory right to deny us the right to bet.’
It’s not clear that Dr Sahibzada has suffered any loss or on what basis the round figure of £100,000 is calculated,” he added.
Judge Holmes agreed Sahibzada had failed to argue clear grounds for his claim. Even if the cash game regulars’ antipathy was motivated by underlying racism, there was “no indication that it permeated the reasoning of the casino itself,” which has the right to decide whom it allows on its premises, the judge added.
“At the heart of this is the style in which he chose to play his game, which caused a degree of frustration to the ‘playboy’ element, which didn’t feel this was an appropriate way of playing,” he concluded.
No comments yet