A London poker player’s GBP 100,000 claim against the Hippodrome Casino has been thrown out of court, with a judge ruling the venue was entirely within its rights to ban him from the premises. The decision closes the book on a contentious dispute that centred less on discrimination and more on what other players saw as poor sportsmanship.

The Ban and the Claim

Dr. Mortaza Sahibzada was banned from the Hippodrome in September 2023, a decision he claims cost him significantly. He alleged the ban affected his income and accused fellow players of racism following complaints about his playing style. The case was heard at Central London County Court and became a detailed examination of poker etiquette, casino rights, and what constitutes acceptable behaviour at a gaming table.

Hit and Run Tactics

The real issue here wasn’t conduct that violated house rules. Rather, it was Sahibzada’s strategy of playing short sessions and departing the moment he’d made a modest profit, typically around GBP 75. In poker circles, this is known as “hit and run” play, and whilst perfectly legal, it’s widely viewed as poor form by regular cash game players who feel it undermines the integrity of longer sessions.

Sahibzada argued he’d built a disciplined system generating roughly GBP 2,000 monthly, treating poker as his profession. He portrayed the ban as an unfair attack orchestrated by wealthy regulars he termed “playboys,” suggesting management sided with them rather than fairly assessing his conduct.

The Casino’s Defence

The Hippodrome’s legal team painted a different picture. Barrister Harry Stratton contended the ban followed several unpleasant interactions with staff and legitimate concerns about Sahibzada’s behaviour at the table. They also challenged the GBP 100,000 figure outright, arguing there was insufficient evidence he’d suffered losses on that scale.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Andrew Holmes sided firmly with the casino. He found no evidence racism had influenced the decision and concluded the tension arose from other players’ frustration with Sahibzada’s playing style. Crucially, he affirmed what most operators already know: casinos have clear legal authority to decide who enters their premises and who doesn’t.

It’s straightforward for the gaming industry. Venues can set standards for player conduct and etiquette, and courts won’t overturn those decisions lightly, particularly when the alleged conduct involves tactics widely viewed as disruptive rather than illegal. For the Hippodrome, it’s vindication. For Sahibzada? It’s the end of a costly road.