Poker player sues London’s Hippodrome casino for £100k after ban ‘for cashing out too fast’

A professional poker player who described himself in court as a “safe gambling expert” has had his £100,000 compensation claim against one of Britain’s biggest casinos rejected.

Dr Mortaza Sahibzada claimed he was unfairly banned from the Hippodrome Casino in September 2023 after rival players complained that he was “taking money” from card games too quickly.

He sued for £100,000 in damages, saying he was “banned from entering or gambling in the casino”.

Located in Leicester Square, the glitzy West End casino has 93,000 square feet of gaming space, including a dedicated poker floor, within a converted theater and nightclub.

Former engineering researcher at Imperial College London, Dr. Sahibzada claimed that he became unpopular at the Hippodrome due to his “highly disciplined” hit-and-run strategy.

This involved leaving the tables after winning around £75 and preventing opponents from recouping their losses.

He said this “innovative” tactic allowed him to earn over £2,000 a month.

He sued in Central London County Court, claiming casino managers were secretly siding with wealthy poker patrons who disapproved of players like him withdrawing money too quickly.

He told judge Andrew Holmes: “The pressure was the impression that if you didn’t you would be evicted and lose your livelihood as a professional poker player.”

Hippodrome’s lawyer, Harry Stratton, told the court that Dr. He said Sahibzada had “gambled before” at the casino and was a member of the Rewards Programme.

It added: “In September 2023, the Hippodrome suspended him from membership and banned him from entering the casino or gambling due to a number of unpleasant interactions with staff and concerns about his problem gambling.”

The lawyer called the case “hopeless” and asked the judge to deny his request.

Although Dr Sahibzada based his case on a number of grounds, including breach of contract and racial discrimination, Mr Stratton said his claim was “completely unfounded”.

“The breach of contract claim is bound to fail,” he told the judge.

“It is unclear on what basis he said he had a legal right to gamble at the Hippodrome, especially in circumstances where Dr. Sahibzada clearly acknowledged the casino’s ‘legal right to deny us the right to bet.’

“It is not clear whether Dr Sahibzada suffered any loss or on what basis the round figure of £100,000 was calculated,” the lawyer said, adding: “Normally a person could be said to have benefited financially from not being allowed to gamble.”

However, in court, Dr. Sahibzada revealed how much he relies on playing at the table to fund his lifestyle.

“This was a professional job,” he told the judge.

“I was making a living and was really successful in my niche, which was playing very short hours and having a very modest goal.”

He said problems arose when he tried to exercise his “right to stop gambling” due to complaints from other regular poker players who wanted to win their money back and the way management handled the situation.

Although Dr. initially told him that he could withdraw money whenever he wanted, he claimed that the management sided with the “playboy” ordinary players against him. “But I wasn’t being rude, I was just extremely disciplined in my strategy,” Sahibzada said.

He claimed that the casino was, in fact, secretly supporting the “policy” of patrons, which discouraged players from leaving too early.

His ban from performing as he wished was due to the racist attitudes of several of his fellow players, whom he described as rich “playboys”, alleging racial discrimination in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

“They don’t like foreigners winning, they see me that way – although I’m not actually a foreigner,” he said.

“They don’t want people to get away with their money.”

But Judge Holmes, Dr. He said Sahibzada had not given a clear justification for his claim, explaining: “Even if there was some degree of racism in the behavior of these ‘playboys’, there is no indication that this permeated the casino’s logic and conduct in this case.”

“At the core of this is the way he chooses to play his game and that has caused a degree of disappointment in the playboy element who feel that this is not an appropriate style of play.”

Dr. Deciding that Sahibzada’s claim should be “accepted”, he added: “I cannot understand how it can be said that there has been a breach of a particular contract in the circumstances.

“The casino has the right to decide who comes to its facilities and who does not and who can use its services.

“I cannot see that the claim now formulated can succeed.”

After dismissing the case and granting summary judgment for the Hippodrome, Judge Holmes also noted Dr. It directed Sahibzada to pay the casino’s legal fees, estimated at just over £11,000.