Poker Player Loses Lawsuit Against London Casino After Controversial Ban

A poker player who sued London’s famous Hippodrome Casino for GBP 100,000 ($134,000) after being banned from the venue has lost his case in court, with a judge ruling that the casino acted within its rights.

Dr. Mortaza Sahibzada decided to file the lawsuit after he was no longer allowed to enter or gamble at the casino in September 2023. The decision, he said, significantly affected his income. 

The “Hit and Run” Controversy

Dr. Sahibzada went on to accuse some fellow players of racism after complaints were made about the way he played poker.

The case was heard at Central London County Court and focused heavily on Sahibzada’s gambling style. Namely, according to court documents, he would often play short sessions and leave the game as soon as he would make a relatively small profit, usually around GBP 75 ($100).

The strategy itself does not go against casino rules, but it is widely disliked by regular cash game players who refer to it as a “hit and run,” a tactic many players consider poor etiquette.

Sahibzada told the court he had developed a disciplined system that allowed him to make a living from poker, earning roughly £2,000 a month. He argued that the casino’s ban effectively stopped him from carrying out his profession.

He also claimed the complaints against him came from wealthy regulars whom he described as “playboys,” adding that he felt management sided with them too quickly.

The Casino Disagrees

However, lawyers representing the Hippodrome Casino rejected those accusations. Barrister Harry Stratton argued that the ban followed several unpleasant interactions with staff, along with concerns linked to Sahibzada’s gambling behavior.

The defense also questioned the basis of the GBP 100,000 claim ($134,000), arguing there was no clear evidence of financial losses on that scale.

Judge Andrew Holmes ultimately sided with the casino. In his ruling, he said there was no indication that racism played any part in the venue’s decision to ban the player.

Instead, the judge concluded that the conflict was rooted in frustration among other players over Sahibzada’s style of play. He also noted that casinos are legally entitled to decide who they allow onto their premises.