Full Breakdown
Hippodrome Casino Bans Professional Poker Player Dr Mortaza Sahibzada, Claim Dismissed
5/16/2026, 2:00:09 AM
The Ban and Lawsuit
In September 2023, Dr Mortaza Sahibzada, a professional poker player and former Imperial College London engineering researcher, was suspended from the Hippodrome Casino in Leicester Square. He sued for £100,000, alleging breach of contract, racial discrimination, and loss of livelihood. Judge Andrew Holmes dismissed the claim, granting summary judgment to the casino and ordering Sahibzada to pay roughly £11,000 in legal costs.
Playing Style and Dispute
Sahibzada’s “hit-and-run” method involved leaving a table after winning about £75, limiting opponents’ chance to recover losses. He said the approach earned him over £2,000 a month. Regular players, whom he called “playboys,” complained that his quick cash-outs prevented them from recouping stakes, prompting the casino’s suspension.
Data Summary
- Claim: £100,000.
- Legal fees: ~£11,000.
- Average win per session: £75.
- Monthly earnings claimed: >£2,000.
- Hippodrome size: 93,000 sq ft.
Official Statements & Responses
Hippodrome’s barrister, Harry Stratton, said the breach-of-contract claim “is bound to fail” and that the casino’s statutory right to refuse betting is clear. Judge Holmes ruled that “the casino is entitled to decide who does or doesn’t come within its premises and use its services,” finding no contractual entitlement for the plaintiff.
Criticism & Opposition
Sahibzada argued the ban stemmed from “racist attitudes” of affluent regulars who opposed “foreigners winning,” despite his claim that he is not a foreigner. He said the casino covertly backed a policy discouraging early cash-outs, violating the 2010 Equality Act and threatening his professional livelihood.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The court noted that Sahibzada “disclosed no clear grounds for his claim” and that the £100,000 loss figure was not substantiated. While the plaintiff emphasized discrimination, the judge found no evidence that such attitudes influenced the casino’s decision.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms a casino’s right to exclude patrons based on conduct, while highlighting the evidentiary burden on professional gamblers alleging discrimination under UK equality law.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The compulsion here was the impression that, if you don’t do this, you would get kicked out of the house and lose your livelihood as a professional poker player.” — Dr Mortaza Sahibzada, in court
- “They don’t like foreigners winning, which is how they see me – although I’m not actually a foreigner,“ he said.” — Dr Mortaza Sahibzada, testimony
- “ But Judge Holmes said Dr Sahibzada had disclosed no clear grounds for his claim, explaining: “Even if there was a degree of underlying racism in the way these ‘playboys’ were acting, there’s no indication that it permeated the reasoning of the casino itself and the way it behaved in this case.” — Judge Andrew Holmes
- “ Ruling that Dr Sahibzada’s claim should be “struck out”, he added: “I cannot see how it can be said that there’s been any breach of a particular contract in these circumstances.” — Judge Andrew Holmes
What’s Next
Following the judgment, Dr Sahibzada must pay the casino’s legal fees. No appeal has been reported in the sources, leaving the summary judgment as the final resolution of the dispute.
