Published on: May 18, 2026, 10:24h.
Updated on: May 18, 2026, 11:23h.
- Poker enthusiast loses £100,000 lawsuit against Hippodrome Casino in London
- Ban issued after player complaints regarding controversial “hit-and-run” poker tactics
- Judge dismisses allegations of racial discrimination and breach of contract
A poker player banned from the Hippodrome Casino in London has seen his £100,000 (approximately US$134,000) lawsuit dismissed, which was filed against the establishment for breach of contract and claims of racial discrimination.
Dr. Mortaza Sahibzada initiated legal action against the Hippodrome after being barred from the venue in September 2023, following complaints from other patrons about his rapid cashouts.
In the lawsuit, Sahibzada described these rivals as “racist” affluent “playboys,” alleging that the management was quick to side with them during disputes.
“They seem discontent with foreigners winning, which is how they perceive me, even though I am not actually a foreigner,” he told Judge Andrew Holmes at the Central London County Court, as mentioned by The Telegraph.
Hit and Run?
Sahibzada contended that his approach involved a “highly disciplined strategy,” which meant leaving a cash game after achieving approximately £75 (around US$100) in winnings. While not directly stated in local media, it is likely he employed a technique referred to as “short-stacking”—a playstyle not favored among seasoned cash game players.
This involves buying in with a smaller chip stack—typically 20 to 40 big blinds instead of the conventional 100—waiting for the right moment to go all-in, hoping to double up. This approach diminishes the depth and creativity of the game, reducing post-flop play, and compelling deeper stacks to play more conservatively.
Although quickly leaving the table after a significant win—termed a “hit and run”—is permissible within the rules, it is often frowned upon as poor poker etiquette, which may lead to social backlash.
Sahibzada asserted that the casino’s ban restricted his ability to conduct his “professional occupation,” which brought in £2,000 (around US$2,700) monthly.
“I was making my living and had honed my skills in my niche, which revolved around playing for very brief periods and aiming for modest goals,” he explained to the judge.
‘Unpleasant Interactions’
Harry Stratton, representing the Hippodrome, stated that the plaintiff was banned due to “a series of unpleasant encounters with staff and concerns regarding problematic gambling behavior.”
“His breach of contract claim is destined to fail,” Stratton informed the judge. “There is no clarity on what grounds he believes he has a legal right to gamble at the Hippodrome, notably as Dr. Sahibzada acknowledged the casino’s ‘statutory right to refuse service.’”
“It remains unclear whether Dr. Sahibzada has endured any real loss or the rationale behind the claim for £100,000,” he added.
Judge Holmes concurred that Sahibzada did not present sufficient grounds for his claim. He noted that even if the discomfort expressed by regular cash game players carried racial undertones, there was “no proof that this influenced the casino’s rationale,” which holds the authority to determine whom it admits within its premises. He further explained, “At the core of this matter lies his chosen method of play, which generated frustration among the affluent players who felt that it was an inappropriate way to engage in the game.”