A professional poker player, who described himself in court as “an expert in safe gambling”, has had his £100,000 damages claim against one of Britain's largest casinos dismissed.Dr Mortaza Sahibzada alleged he was unfairly banned from the Hippodrome Casino in September 2023 after rival players complained he “cashed out” too quickly from card games. He sued for £100,000 in compensation, saying that he was “barred from entering or gambling at the casino”.The glitzy West End casino, located in Leicester Square, boasts 93,000 square feet of gaming space, including a dedicated poker floor, within a converted theatre and nightclub.Dr Sahibzada, a former Imperial College London engineering researcher, claimed that he became unpopular at the Hippodrome due to his “highly disciplined” hit-and-run strategy. This involved leaving tables after winning about £75, preventing competitors from recouping their losses. He said that this “innovative” tactic allowed him to earn over £2,000 monthly.The Hippodrome Casino in Leicester Square is Britain's largest casino (Supplied by Champion News)Suing at Central London County Court, he alleged that casino managers secretly sided with affluent poker regulars who disapproved of players like him cashing out too fast.He told Judge Andrew Holmes: “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.”Harry Stratton, Hippodrome’s barrister, told the court that Dr Sahibzada had “previously gambled” at its casino and was a member of its Rewards Programme. He added: “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.”The barrister branded his case “hopeless” and asked the judge to dismiss his claim.And although Dr Sahibzada had based his case on a number of grounds, including breach of contract and racial discrimination, Mr Stratton said his claim was “totally without merit”.“The breach of contract claim is bound to fail,” he told the judge.“It is not clear on what basis he says he has a legal right to gamble at Hippodrome, particularly in circumstances where Dr Sahibzada explicitly acknowledges the casino’s 'statutory right to deny us the right to bet'.“It’s not clear that Dr Sahibzada has suffered any loss or on what basis the round figure of £100,000 is calculated,” said the barrister, adding that, “normally one would say that a person financially benefits from not being allowed to gamble”.But in court, Dr Sahibzada explained how much he had relied on playing the tables to fund his lifestyle.“It was a professional occupation,” he told the judge. “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.”Mortaza Sahibzada was banned from the West End's glitzy Hippodrome Casino (Supplied by Champion News)He said problems developed when he tried to exercise his “right to stop gambling” due to complaints from other regular poker players anxious to win their money back, and the way that management handled the situation.“But I wasn’t being rude, I was just being extremely disciplined in my strategy,” said Dr Sahibzada, who went on to claim that the management had ended up siding with “playboy” regular players against him, despite initially telling him that he could cash out any time he liked.In fact, the casino had secretly backed the regulars’ “policy” which discouraged players from baling out too early, he claimed.Banning him from playing as he chose resulted from racist attitudes by several of his fellow players, who he labelled wealthy “playboys”, alleging race discrimination in breach of the 2010 Equality Act.“They don’t like foreigners winning, which is how they see me – although I’m not actually a foreigner,“ he said.“They don’t want people to get away with their money.”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.“At the heart of this is the style in which he chose to play his game, which caused a degree of frustration to the playboy element which didn’t feel this was an appropriate way of playing.”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.“The casino is entitled to decide who does or doesn’t come within its premises and use its services.“I can’t see that the claim as currently formulated could succeed.”After dismissing the case and ordering summary judgment for the Hippodrome, Judge Holmes also directed that Dr Sahibzada should pay the casino’s legal fees, estimated at just over £11,000.