Poker Player Loses £100,000 Lawsuit Against Hippodrome Casino

(AsiaGameHub) –   A London court has thrown out a £100,000 lawsuit filed by English poker player Dr. Mortaza Sahibzada, who claimed he was unfairly banned from Hippodrome Casino due to his short-session poker strategy.

Good to Know

• Dr. Mortaza Sahibzada sought £100,000 in damages.
• He alleged the casino barred him after complaints about rapid cash-outs.
• Judge Andrew Holmes ruled that Hippodrome Casino could refuse him entry.

Sahibzada played at the PokerStars-branded poker room in London, which regularly hosts events like the UK and Ireland Poker Tour. He employed a disciplined “hit-and-run” approach, exiting games quickly after winning around £75.

This style often frustrates other players, as it limits their opportunity to recoup losses. However, Sahibzada defended his method as “innovative,” claiming it enabled him to earn up to £2,000 per month.

Casino Ban Case Ends In Dismissal

The former Imperial College engineering researcher described his strategy as a form of safe gambling and referred to himself as “an expert in safe gambling.”

In court, he stated:

“I was making a living, and I became really good in my niche, which was to play for very short hours and to have a very modest target.”

Hippodrome Casino offered a different version of events. The venue explained that Sahibzada was suspended in September 2023 following multiple negative interactions with staff and fellow players, as well as concerns about problematic gambling behavior.

Casino lawyer Harry Stratton said:

“In September 2023, Hippodrome suspended him from membership following a number of unpleasant interactions with staff and concerns about problem gambling, and barred him from entering or gambling at its casino.”

Stratton further dismissed the lawsuit as “totally without merit” and “bound to fail.”

He added:

“It is not clear on what basis he claims he has a legal right to gamble at Hippodrome, especially since Dr. Sahibzada acknowledges the casino’s right to deny entry.”

Judge Andrew Holmes sided with Hippodrome Casino, finding no legal grounds for the claim. In his judgment, he observed:

“I cannot see how it can be argued that there has been any breach of contract under these circumstances.

“The casino has the right to determine who may enter its premises or use its services.”