Bitcoin Forum

A situation occurred today in my locality,  I have some guys working for me today and suddenly I hard them battling with an issues and when I get close to them to know what exactly the problem is,  and I asked the guy who look strange to me since I am meeting him for the first time and not a worker on the site what his business and why he is distracting the workers from work.

Then the guy narrated his case to be and he said,  that one of the workers came to his betting shop the yesterday to play some visual,  that at first the guy came with ₦‎1,000 in my local currency to make the bets and along the line, he existed the balance but as a regular customer,  the agent decided to allow him at further on credits and in all he accumulated a total debt of ₦‎8,000 because he lost all the bets and since that yesterday he has been on the run from the gambling agent until he traced him to the site today.

So when I wanted to judge the case and possible settlement,  I query the casino agent how can you allow a customer to gamble on credit to the tune of 8k Knowing fully well that the gambler only has a 1k balance which already existed?

Also what is the probability that the gambler will ever return after owning such debt in the betting shops,  note the gambler's daily pay is 2k as a helper on the site,  so he has to work for 4 days to be able to meet that debt that is if he doesn't make any other expenses.

Question is:

What is the possibility of the betting agent getting his money soon/considering the gambler's low-income earnings?

He do not know the work of a betting agent. Betting agent do not borrow people money to bet. He will know this if he has been in the business for long. Football or other sport virtual matches takes less than 15 to 30 seconds from start to to the end and it can make someone to bet further before he realizes that his money has been exhausted.

By making installment adjustments in my opinion, how much is his ability in one installment and asking him to do it until it is paid off, if the player still cannot pay his debt then it is the fault of the betting agent because he is greedy enough to let his customer gamble more than the financial capacity that the customer has, it becomes the thing that can be when a person becomes greedy because it will benefit him so when the reality is the opposite then that is a risk he has to accept because it also leads someone to gamble more than their means.

The worker at your sight will settle the betting shop owner, if that's the only Shop available in that locality for gambling needs. The gambler is addicted, if not he could've left once after the loss. What he had done is kind of borrowing to gamble. Here the mistake is with the gambling shop owner, because he had tempted the person to gamble and made him loss.

To the OP, If you get an opportunity to ask a question to the gambling shop owner please ask the below question.
You've given credit to gamble, if he had won big will you not ask for the winning amount?? If so, he should take part in the loss too.

I don't know how the betting service works in your country, I don't know how this betting company works, so it's difficult to comment precisely on this subject, but taking into account the laws of my country, for example, and suppose it's the same as the one in In your country I would say that the responsibility lies with the betting agent, legally in my country and in many countries it is forbidden for gambling companies to make loans to players, this is illegal because gambling companies are only licensed to operate games of bad luck and not to operate with a credit bank

so in this case the betting agent will be found guilty and he will have to pay the company where he works, the guy who played would just pay if he wanted to, he is not legally obliged to pay anything, no doubt the betting agent will be fired from betting company, and as we don't know about the betting company's TOS, we can't say whether these betting company employees will be held criminally responsible or not, because most of the time these betting companies in Africa are doing slave work, that's because the salary of the betting agent is a small commission for each ticket that is sold, this I consider very unfair

First and foremost, I will love to know if this story is truly a true life, or just a fiction, my reason for this is because, I also have a project ongoing, and I know I've been paying helpers 5k per day, because they said that's the fee they now charge due to the current high cost of living in the country - anyways, this something we can discuss privately.

On the main issue and discussion on this thread, for me, it is the betting agent who is to be blamed, and I say it here with all alacrity that If I am the gambler, and the agent allow me bet to extent I owe him such an amount of money, he should better kiss that money good buy cus I won't pay him, as long as I lost all the bets, he as a betting agent should have understood that a gambler is not always in his right Frame of mind when desperate for a win but keep making losses, he should have been the one to stop the gambler, not watch him play to the ton of 8k.

The fault will always be on the player who gave in to the temptation in order to play. The betting agent is only doing his job, offered their products, and that's it. The gambler who knew full well that they didn't have any balance on their account still took the offer despite knowing his situation. He gambled, he lost, he needs to pay, and he has no right whatsoever to protest if the betting agent is requesting him to pay.

As for the payment, I don't know if the worker is good for his word or not, but the betting agent has the right to force your worker to pay, although of course that should be done after hours on your worker's duty.

Well a proper discussion regarding on settlement made should be discuss towards the betting agent since there's nothing they can do with this since your worker cannot pay in full since he is earning low only. This is a lesson that need to learn by your worker that never bet exceed on his earning capacity since he experience more worst than this.


Also never do any decision that you cannot take especially if its risky on his side this is a hard lesson need to face by your worker.

If the borrower intends to pay then he will get his money but not soon because of the earning of the borrower, probably and installment payment may do but if the borrower is on the run then he will be having a hard time getting his money.  If there is a contract about the person borrowing money, he can file a case against that person but still that does not guarantee to make the borrower pay.

Both are to be blamed, however, why is the agent lending money?

My estimate would be several weeks since you mentioned his income is around 2k. That gambler will likely return since he's a helper in the betting shop, and I doubt he can easily throw away his job only for the gambling money he borrowed, which is worth around 8k. The person to blame here would be the betting agent because most casinos will never lend any money to their customers. I guess the betting agent got careless and overestimated his customer/helper because he might've thought there was less risk involved, but he still decided to go on the run.

Main question aside, I must say the agent is quite dumb to allow the person to make a loan to gamble. I'm assuming it wasn't under a contract, hence why the guy easily ran away and hid. If he was trying to take advantage of him, a contract should've been 100% necessary.

To the question though, I reckon it should be a max of a month, and a minimum of maybe 2 weeks? That should be enough time imo for the debtee to pay his debts, granted he doesn't do the same sht of gambling it all again though.

I think this is similar to a recent thread about borrowing money to gamble, if it was a nice idea but in this case the deed has already been done.

To me I think the agent has some personal relationship with that worker of yours, maybe he knew him for somewhere in the past for him to be able to let him place bets on credits because you won't expect a random stranger to jsut go that agent's shop and he'll allow them bet for free if he tries it for others then his shop will fold up in less than a month.

The only solution now is to try to settle a date for the payment and since you mentioned that the income of the debtor is low then the agent should agree on installement payment because it's almost impossible for him to pay everything at once. And if that does not work then he should consider informing the police because that will scare him to pay up quickly.

I don't even understand why this is made to appear confusing. Who is to blame? Of course it's the gambler. Why would the betting agent be blamed when he wasn't the one who spent the money on gambling and he was even the one who was kind enough to let the gambler continue playing on credit. He didn't force the gambler to bet. He didn't hold him at gunpoint just so he continues betting.

The gambler will have to pay what he borrowed. Not at once of course because he cannot do that. He will pay his debt daily until it will be fully settled.

From this case, the player is the most wrong party, because we can see that at first the player came with his money and since he kept losing, the gambling agent allowed him to continue playing with what they said was "debt". But instead of winning, he kept losing and in the end he ran away. Okay, this is a trick that is commonly used by gambling agents to get players to keep playing by providing them with a debt feature, but this is a big mistake for players because they are playing gambling with money that is not theirs. It's their fault because they didn't play with the responsibility of gambling and ran away from their obligations. Like it or not, players have to pay their debts because they play it with their own conscience and they certainly already know the consequences if they don't pay their obligations.

Where gambling is unregulated and ruled by mafias, they take it one way or another. Either you pay however you can, either by giving everything you get paid or by selling things, or you are at risk of physical harm. In this case, if gambling is completely legal and the agent has no power of coercion, it is either going to cost him a lot to recover the money and little by little or he is not going to recover it at all, although it seems to me that the latter is more likely.

If we consider the gambler's ability to repay, there is a slim chance that he will be able to recover the money he borrowed. However, there may be some form of agreement between the gambler and the lender that ensures timely repayment, even if the gambler has a low income. It's worth noting that gambling laws often have their own provisions that differ from those in the real world.

The betting agent is to blame, gambling has no room for creditors and such rules should be printed out on cardboard and visible to all incoming gamblers, if this debtor is gambling through online casino will he be able to gamble as a debtor? There is no room for such.

This is one of the disadvantages for casino owners, giving faces for people that want to gamble without to money, and when the losses gets bigger the gambler's life will be at risk because of threats and this could lead to suicide.

I do not recommend offline casinos but if anyone is running such, say no to debts because you are not helping your business and you are not helping gamblers, I see this as a way to ruin gamblers lives easily, because you can tell that addiction is real.

In mainland China, some casinos willingly give gamblers the access to gamble on debit and this cost them their lives, until a new law was Installed in this once ruthless city.

Since you have been involved in the case maybe you can stand as a surety or guarantoor to make deductions from your employees pay every months to use in making repayment of the 8k owing till he pay the whole money finish, to me that's the fair Justice you can only do just to alow things settled amicably without both being affected since the gamblers cannot denied he's owning the gambling agent money, but i believe that the agent too as well would have learnt the very best lesson of his life in giving credit, if he was unable to make the recover back, his own employer will make the deduction from his salary to be received for that month without a repentance no matter how he begs.

Getting the gamblers into debt is not something a legit betting agent would go.
This guy(the betting agent) is most likely a gangster/mobster. I know that the gangsters, who a operate a gambling business always want to hook more gamblers by giving them credit and making them their "slaves". The combination of a "loan shark" service and a gambling business is pretty dangerous for the gamblers and borrowing money from such gangsters might totally ruin their lives.

Maybe I didn't catch all of this storyline or I could have missed something, but if what I see seems like it's the betting agent's fault why lend money to him while lending it without any collateral would be inconvenient, usually if I'm gambling with my friends , then my friend borrowed money from me, he guaranteed his watch which was worth the same as the money borrowed.

If you read it again why do you have to run from that debt, while that person can pay it in installments even though his salary is 2k every day while the debt is 8k it is small, even every day he can repay 1k so that it is lighter to meet his daily needs. I think that makes more sense, but I think it's all the fault of the betting agent, not the gambler.  ;)

I think their both expectations was high that the betting agent forgot his duty and allowed a stranger because, obviously that's what he is, someone you know just by patronage, you allowed play take bets for that amount on credit...

I pray the guy pays up If not, certainly the agent will have to pay to be able to balance his work

It is extremely difficult for the betting agent to get his money soon considering the low income earnings of the gambler in this case.The gambler's only choice in this context is if he goes and get a loan from the bank which if does so this would burden even further the situation he got and put himself in.That is why gambling is not for everyone and unfortunately the only one to blame is the gambler in this case,most of the blame is on him but if the betting agent just let him play on credit without any contract or any paper or legal agreement then he is the one to have a hard time and probably not ever get his money back.

Your story signifies the bookie's oversight. The debtor, earning 2k daily, would require at least four expense-less days for debt settlement - not a feasible assumption. Considering this, the bookie's fast debt collection looks doubtful. It emphasizes the importance of caution and discernment in lending in gambling. The event stands as a firm lesson on the hazards of careless lending and over-gambling, notably for the bookie.

The two parties should amicably agreed on a particular term and condition then settle it without quarrelling. And as you said, and as others as said also the bettor should pay the debt with an installmental option so things will be soft landing. The bettor would have told the betting agent the time he would pay back the debt because it is a business and he can't keep the money for a long period of time. The addicted gamblers always looking for a way to gamble so as a sports bookmakers, you have to be careful with the dealing with the bettors.

Does his gambling space have permit to operate and a debt repayment structure form that is notarized? Coz if dont have it I am afraid that man who owns the gambling space will had to have a hard time asking that guy for a repayment. It is not that huge of an amount really when the total amount of his debt can be earned in just 4 days. All that owner have to do is to wait for the payday or at least give that man a 1 month time frame to make the repayment otherwise he is going be permanently ban in his gambling space.
They both have lapses on their end and no ones to be blamed here. They both have their own needs they are just complying to it. The owner needs profit and the gambler needs more money to gamble more and possible take back what he have lost.

If the gambling policy of the casino mandates the attendant to grant customers access to credit then he did nothing wrong. But if there is no such provision as credit facilities, the attendant is to blame and he has to seek means to recover the credit facility. It is risky to give credit facilities to anybody even if it is a committed customer because gambling is also an unpredictable terrain. Except you have the details of the person to follow up on the loan, the gambler can easily abandon a casino and move to another one.

My advice is that you should help the gambling attendant to recover the credit from your worker. Since your worker accepted that he is indebted to the attendant, all of you can agree to deduct a percentage from the worker's wages periodically until he fully pays the debt. Also, don't give the worker any financial responsibility to handle because he is suffering from a gambling addiction.

If the worker is willing to pay his debt they can settle this through installment even it takes a few days to be fully paid. For the question who is to blame here, well both because why the agent lend money knowing that the worker is short of money and has low income. If you're doing business you will be wise to ask for collateral to be certain that you'll get paid. In this situation the worker already run from gambling to escape from his debt and this is intentional.

On the other side, the worker as well is at fault since he borrowed money to gamble which is discourage if you'll play. Now he has to face the consequence of his action.

That's a bad decision on the part of the betting agent, because if he forces the gambler to pay his loan the gambler may even file a complaint of threat or intentionally misleading him to take a loan to bet, it happens here in our country the gambler file a coercion complaint and the mediator, judge in favor of the gambler.
Even if there is a contract the betting agent did not employ the right judgment on who he will give credit to play its bad for a business to abuse or deceive people to give them a loan to gamble even though the gambler does not have the capacity to pay his loan, so the agent is the one to blame here even if there is an agreement to pay it will take time before he gets the full payment, because of the worker meager salary.

That possibility is a condition where indeed the gambler and the agent really know each other so that they take a risky action when allowing something that has the potential to be like that and indeed that is also evidenced by your words that say regular customers.
Regardless of anything I can't say the agent is also innocent because he is careless but on the other hand, of course it is the gambler who really cannot rely on emotions and acts so stupid by doing things that he cannot face in terms of the consequences and things like this really besides harming yourself and harming others.

He's not a good casino agent, it's okay to give loans it happens in physical casinos but they lend to high rollers, not to common workers its abuse when you force a worker to pay the loan to you when he cannot provide for his family


Not good, the worker will have his family on top of his priority and whatever is left that's what he will pay for the casino agent, as a rule of thumb you never give a loan to someone who can afford to gamble, which he can't afford to lose.



It may take weeks even if you take it in a small claim court the welfare of the lender is still in consideration because you cannot take everything from a debtor to the point he has nothing left even for food.

For me they are both to blame on this circumstances,
The gambler wouldn't be in debt if he just walked away when he lost his own money.
And the agent should also be aware of the situation and evaluate it base on how much the gambler is earning and how long it would take for them to pay.
As an agent you should know if your gambler could really pay ot off before letting them borrow.

Maybe the gambling agent can seize the gamblers phone, or look for what he can collect from the gambler, after the gambler pays him, he will be able to get his properties back, and if he can’t pay over a specific period of time which the agent gives him, then the agent will sell the property and use the money to replace the debts he is owning, and if their is any amount left, then the agent will return it to the gambler.


This is a serious case, if am to blame then I will be blaming the gambling agent, why will you allow someone to gamble on debt, it’s not really making sense, he came with #1,000, after losing all the money, then the agent shouldn’t have allowed him to continue.

If we can look it from another perspective(agent perspective), maybe the agent knows the gambler very well, maybe the gambler gambles frequently at the agents side, so since the gambler already loss all the money he came with, maybe he gave him opportunity so that he can continue trying his luck maybe after winning, the gambler will Pay him back. But we all know that the agent was just trying to run his business.

I wonder why there are bookmakers who allow someone to bet with a lot of money, especially if that person can't show how much money. Maybe it will be a very long time for that person to pay the money to the betting agency. That's even if the person doesn't run away to another place so the betting agent's men won't chase him because I know the betting agent won't just let that person go without paying the money. It's also possible that this will be a long escape for that person because if he runs away, he will lose his job and not be able to pay the money.

When a gambler loses, he temporarily forgets many things that is why during that time he lost more. At this time he will accept whatever loan is given to him. Betting agent should be more careful in this regard. In view of this I think the Gambling Agent made the mistake. My allegation on what basis did the agent lend the gambler so much money? 8000 was loaned to someone who had only 1000. This must have been a big mistake on the part of the agent. Now the agent has to bear this debt or loss as a result of the gambler absconding.

The ₦‎8,000 is a small amount of money, I don't think a person with a conscience will not pay the money back. However, no one could possibly know whether he will get his money back or not because the answer to your question lies in the integrity of the debtor and the perseverance of the agent, including the measures used to collect the money back.

Most blame however goes to the person who plays more without having the means to pay, such could be jailed for that. Nonetheless, the agent should have his fair share of the blame as well, though he acted based on trust in a regular customer as most agents issue tickets before collecting money. But he should have asked for his money before it gets up to ₦‎8,000.

If you look from a moral pov, borrowing money to gamble is wrong. So both of them are guilty because they should understand about this basic rule. But agents are more guilty of making concessions to a customer regardless of how trustworthy he is.
I have no idea how to resolve it, but allowing this guy to try their luck at a few more bets is the wrong move.

I believe both are to be blamed, the agent for allowing him to gamble on credit that too for 8k while he clearly saw that the gambler has only 1k even if he didn't know that he is a laborer and earns a very minimum wage each day, and gambler should be blamed for taking credit loan from the shop and not showing up again which is totally unethical, even if he didn't have the money pay off the debt at that time, he could at least go and ask for more time.

Now, for the settlement, the only viable way here is that if he earns 2k per day, he should pay 1k each day to the agent for 8 consecutive days so that his debt is settled, and he should use the other 1k on his daily expenses, that way, he will get free from the debt and the agent will also get his money.

The agent wasn't the one to be blamed to be honest and the worker really has the capacity to pay that debt on his name with 4 days of working. Maybe, the agent knows that the worker can pay it and he really knows where he can be found, so he didn't hesitate to give him some credits. I think the gambler should be the one responsible for what he had act.

Gambling with the money they don't have is a huge crime and that feature is not available on actual casinos but on small scale level gambling business they may handle things differently. If someone lend you money then they know how to get them back and that's what happened here actually.

Both are to be blamed here but I will stand with the agent here and it's the responsibility of gambler to pay back what he owe to someone, and if he can't pay the debt then it will ruin their character in the society forever.

True, subconsciously he would forget many things because at that time he was being controlled by his lust for defeat so what was in his mind was to want to do it again in the hope that he would be able to get a victory to replace the previous loss. Everyone, especially gamblers, will definitely experience this and have felt this position. Self-control is indeed very important in gambling, but in fact, most of them (gamblers) find it difficult to do this because of the level of emotion that has controlled them. I don't think we can fully blame the agent because gamblers have also agreed to take the loan, but yes they did it when their condition was not good, meaning they were in a psychological mess so it was easy for them to accept such loans without a second thought. The agent has taken advantage of the conditions to gain an advantage.

This problem lies in gambling addiction and I will not blame any of them for anything. Gambling when we do it too frequently could make us become an addict with a bigger consequences if we don't know how to reduce our urge. Gambling is something we all want to make money from and that is why the person that have to gamble on credit did that thinking that he will make profit from it and return the money back to the agent.

 This is why we need to try and bet with the fund that we can afford to lose not going further because it greed and end up losing big in gambling because we want to make big profits. Greed had given many of us scar on our skin due to mistakes which other gamblers can learn from to prevent the same error.

There's no need to be blamed in this kind of scenario, we all know that taking a debt in loan sharks or agents will be our own decision and not made by others, if we fall into large debt it is our own fault and responsibility. Agents are just looking for some possible gamblers to take the loan they will do all things so that the target one will get loan to them.

They will just have to come to a settlement, because they are both at fault.

The gambling agent is greedy, he wanted to make more money that is why he allowed this person to gamble on credit even when he knows that this person does not have the money to pay.

Your worker on site is also at fault because of his inability to control himself, and instead of trying to settle the debt after he has gotten into it, he was trying to avoid the responsibility.

The settlement should be the worker saying how much he will be able to pay daily from what he earns until he is able to settle the debt. The betting agent will have to abide by it as a lesson to him too not to lend someone money to gamble with in his own shop.

I think it's depends on the casino itself, if the betting agent is really open to let the gamblers bet on credit, the betting agent isn't wrong.

Gambler who choose to gamble on credit isn't wrong too, but it's just a bad decision. If the gambler can afford to lose such amount on credit, why it's wrong in the first place? it's all the gambler can afford to lose.

However the agent will force the gambler to pay his debt, if not the agent can just report to court or confiscate valuable thing on the gambler house.

This is a heinous incident, and the betting agent would face punishment from his boss, including a cut in his salary, due to the gambler's pending owing debts. Gambling only produces profits or loses, and most gamblers end up in debt, as you illustrated above. Betting on credit is not recommended, and the betting agent has some concerns; the gambler would pay installments, earning small amounts of money daily, not even enough to take care of himself; he should be given an estimated time to pay out, or he should drop collateral, an important item if he fails to repay his debts, in my opinion that's the possible way out.

Both of them.
1. Agent: Allowed the gamble for loan-betting without any collateral.
2. Gambler: Betting with loan.

Stupid things are from "Agent" how the hell he allowed betting with loan credits, most of casino 99% don't have these policy ~LOL. Gambler are getting debt on loan-service, not on the casino.

Both became greedy. As others have mentioned, the gambler still played an amount even if it is out of his capacity to pay while the betting agent allowed him to do so inspite of the amount the player have asked at first. Both has to face the burden and I guess it would be more of the agent's fault because in the first place the gambler won't lose that much if he did not give him more. The gambler, being greedy and frustrated just pushed his luck, as what normal gamblers do on a daily basis but with different risk tolerance. At the end of the day, the agent won't have anything to make the gambler pay  if he has no wager written on paper, that won't be entertained in any court 'coz of lack of proof if incase and even if he do have it, things will still have conflict I guess.

The chances of the betting agent retrieving his money is very slim because the gambler knowingly that he wouldn't met up with the payment of 8K debt absconded without a trace until he was caught, personally I think you should deduct the money from your betting agent daily income maybe 25% daily until he completely paid the whole money that action will deter him from condoning such act in the nearest future and you should post or place a signpost with an inscription which states that " BETTING ON CREDIT IS NOT ALLOWED" boldly displayed on conspicuous locations around the betting shops I think that will put to end such behavior by addicted gamblers.

Gambling is not the problem, it has been there ever since and we all know that it has risks that you'll lose in the first place. It is our urge that we think we can make profit out of it because we feel it but in reality that wouldn't be reciprocated. Addiction isn't the cause of the constant thing, it is cause because we tend to make a habit out of it and gambling isn't an exception, we have choices and it's upon our responsibility to make those choices.

It's always a big problem honestly...
I've been in situations like this when I worked as a cashier for a local casino -way back. Gamblers will always have a very awkward mindset of winning major - even when they're outta cash, they Still wanna gamble, hoping it comes through.. so all they'll be thinking is - if it comes through,I'll only have to settle the agent for his stakes and take the rest of the millions or thousands left...lol, well that's a strategy that works on rare occasions.

Sandra 🧑‍🦰

Gambling will always be gambling, and it may be very addicting, but it all depends on our ability to manage our impulses and refrain from placing excessive bets. It is not our fault, but rather our choice to risk more out of greed and a desire to cover up for the time we lost. Everything would depend on our personal decision because we were genuinely given the ability to decide whether or not to gamble and whether to continue or stop.
Because we were the ones who made our own decisions after losing at gambling, we cannot hold anyone else responsible for the consequences we are currently experiencing. If the employee had set boundaries and exercised self-control in the first place, this issue would not have arisen.

Can you ask them to show the Terms and Conditions regarding that "credit" feature"?

If you might be able to share it here, we can somehow learn why that customer is eligible for that credit feature. Obviously, there are factors before being considered, and that customer is surely able to achieve those as a regular customer.


Before the credit feature is granted, there should be at least some things that the site is asking for the bettors. That is subject to KYC and the personal information of the borrower is given to the site. There might be also a sort of "references" like most lending institutions asked for their borrowers.

That person can be granted to repay the loan by installment.

Anyways, if that case is an inside job wherein there's really no credit feature but the agent allowed it, they will both suffer consequences. Both agent and customer might face legal action if they weren't able to solve that problem.

In the first place, he shouldn't really be allowed to gamble on a credit. Well, it's on the agent's shoulder now but let's just hope for the best that the guy will pay it even if it takes a longer time until it gets fully paid.

I agree about the suggestion of installment basis as there's no other option unless he's got some stuff that he's willing to sell for it to cover the credit.

Betting shops/casinos offline or online shouldn't allow betting with credit.

You said the chances hid betting agent getting his money back is slim? But I don’t think so, for the begging agent to be able to trace the gambler to the site where he is working, then am sure the agent won’t leave that place empty handed, am sure he will collect something that worth or is more than the money the addicted gambler is owing him, or maybe the gambler will be dragged to the police station by the agent, which the police will be involved and they will be the one to settle the case.

Even if something like this is boldly written on a conspicuous location around the gambling shop, addicted gamblers will still come and will beg to gamble on debt, the only person that can stop that is the agent, if he keeps on denying them whenever they ask him to give them the opportunity to gamble on credit.

I'm not sure if my answer has been answered by other people here, but what I know is that all decisions are up to the gambler himself.
but that doesn't mean that I fully blame gamblers because betting agents should also consider before giving credit permission to customers whose work they don't know.
well, from here it's clear that both of them are wrong because they both want to benefit each other. like gamblers get the advantage of gambling using credit and betting agents can benefit because they have succeeded in taking a lot of profit from the losses that have been obtained by gamblers.

By force. Blackmail. Relatives. Etcetera.

But I want another point on what happened in your worker. You are right when you said how come the agent let the worker make a bet that far in debt if he knew the money is not sufficient enough. What if he won the bet? Will the agent take everything and just leave him with the amount he has first?
Just 1k to be exact. He won, even if it goes the extra mile of profits, I think the agent will just take it all.
This is why I don't like loansharks, middlemen, or whatever they are called. They will take advantage of you even if you win or lose. You win, they take it because what made you win is their money. You lose, they shadow you everywhere even at work which I think is not a good thing anymore. Imagine the shame he threw on your worker upon doing that.
Please do advise him to never do it again. Just use his own money and never depend on others when gambling.

They are both at fault of been too greedy, the gambling agent want to make more money by force, from someone he knew that's already addicted to gambling and probably won't be able to pay back what he owes, yet, he still cruise with the deal.

The gambler himself doesn't care, because his last hope is using the loan to make more money, there are people who do this stupid thing and it turned good for them, instantly they believe they are the smart ones, but not everybody will be that lucky.

Now this person will see why taking loans to gamble is a very bad idea, because the gambling agent will have to use force to make him pay what he owes, I always feel like loan sharks and others feel happy when someone owes them money, they are always prepared to go to war with debtors.

Both are in the wrong position, only the betting agent is the first party to be blamed because he must have thought of the benefits to be gained if he lends money to his customers to gamble without questioning the customer's abilities first, but actually, so that the customer can afford he is not allowed to make loans and also the customer is wrong because of gambling more than his limits and also by using the proceeds of debt, the two must discuss to solve the problem.

I am used to physical bookies/agent shops and they have something in common, they are like bars that give drinks to their customers because of their loyalty. If you come to my place to get something and I know you very well that you do stick to your promise, a time will come that I will help you out when you are in desperate situation. Though, I don't like virtual games, the players are always addicted and most of them use to loss their money if not all, and that's how the bettors default the money they own the agents.

To your question: There are some gambling players that do repay even when they don't win their games but if I have such business, I will never allow bettors play debt on my shop, they will ruin your business down faster than you think and as an agent, you will be running at lost.

Since the gambler will be at fault and receives the best embarrament of his life from the agent he should then be blamed for taking the risk of what he knows to be uncertainties to either win the bet or get the money for repayment back to the agent, the agent i think try his best by being considerate enough maybe due to their familiarities being together over a long time but he also made a mistake of offering a loan knowing that such shouldn't be allowed or permitted when gambling, this equally means he will be in full responsibility for the refundment if the gambler defaulted.

Before answering your question, I have some few words to say. Both the gambler and the bet shop owner are at fault here. For the gambler, why will he be playing with borrowed money when he should know that winning when gambling isn't a guarantee as anything can go wrong.

For the bet shop owner, why will he let a customer gamble on credit, it doesn't matter how you know the customers you should never allow them gamble on credit because you'll be contributing to the customer depression when they lose all the money. We have cases like that that have ended in suicide.

Without a high paying job, how do they expect the gambler to repay the loan. He has to eat and take care of other bills therefore he can't work for four days straight without getting paid. He won't do the job effectively and you'll be putting the quality of your building at risk if you don't pay him.

Both parties are to be blamed for this instance.

The guy who borrowed money from the casino agent should know that he is only supposed to gamble what he can afford to lose. Given that he just have 1,000 on hand, that means he can't really afford to lose a thousand more. Gambling based on your means is needed in order to avoid messy situation such as this. As a player, you shouldn't be irresponsible of your finances to avoid troubling other people.

The casino agent is at fault too. Players should only be allowed to play based on their cash on hand or their card balance. They shouldn't tolerate credit since it's unsure if the player can repay them afterwards. Additionally, it's just a form of precaution and concern since we don't want people to be burdened by pile of debts just because of gambling.

If they had an agreement, that should be an evidence that the player has to pay the casino agent.

If it is said that the most guilty in cases like this, I actually blame the gambler, not the betting agent, because the betting agent lends a certain amount of money with the aim of getting some profit if the gambler continues to carry out game sessions.
It is better to be a gambler who can accept defeat and gamble according to his ability, never have the thought of continuing to play relying on borrowed money because this will make it difficult in the future.
Some gamblers don't think about this because they are too focused on betting and fun for their thinking not to work properly.

Firstly, the poster did not specify the exact work the helpers were doing. Secondly, the location determines the price too. In my locality the helpers get paid 1k to 1.5k if they close late.

Majority of betting agents are found of doing this favor to gamblers just to please their boss at their own detriment. The irony of it is that they will get fired if the boss discovered what they did (i.e allowing customers to play on credit).

Your mindset is not pure after all if you refuse to pay the agent. You'll pay them and even leave some extra change for them if you win right? Just assume it as if you borrow money from your relatives or friends and pay them back regardless of whether you win or not unless you are debtor who doesn't like paying back. Let forget about gambling and focus on real life. Our attitude define us in whatever circumstances. Debt is a debt.... You ask for it and it is necessary you pay it.


Well, you can not tell whether he has another source of income. I know some people who are earning on a weekly or monthly basis but due to one reason or another they engage themselves in site works when they are on leave. So it's possible he can pay back in a short time if he wills. The same thing happened to my friend but unfortunately his phone was seized by the agent until he cleared the debt  ;D some agent does not have joy at all. I guess that one is too cool.

Ofcourse ome will definitely first blame the gambler because he has made two serious mistake in this case, the first one is to borrow money to gamble and the second mistake is for being a disappointment to the agent whol lend him the money out of pity, such person could no longer confide trust in him again and the relationship they had before has just been lost, the gambler has painted himself with bad reputation already and it's a thing of shame for gamblers like him taking loan to gamble and yet not pay back the loan offered.

This is not the first time I've seen something like this, and it's always worse than this one. I wonder how some people think you're busy calculating the money you don't have and they keep playing games with the mindset that they are going to win, if not for that, I wonder why you will play bet for dept up to 8000 nairas, and the agent was always trying to take advantage to grow his business, and since all games played end up in lost, so both of them were at disadvantage. it's always hilarious.


like the query you made was the best, and I hope the agent will accept responsibility and cease letting clients play on the dept. However, both the player and the agent have learned their lesson, imaging working on site and still playing the game for dept, I wonder what kind of mindset this niggas have. I also wonder if the agent will be entitled to his money back, am sure his not getting it back.

On other hand if the betting agent promise to much that the gambler could easily multiply his money by playing and he says its easy to earn with them then the betting agent should be blame because he offer to much unrealistic to that person. And if he didn't receive any overwhelming words provably no betting will happen.

 But also in case of gambler he should know more better because he is the one controlling his self if he could just turndown or limit his playing time that worst case will never happen to him.

Gambling addiction is one serious issue in contemporary issues and at the basic level some can no longer fund their gambling ambition any longer and this has resulted in a serious financial crisis for both them and their immediate family something like this have always been a big problem and most of us here have experience something like this.

The agent is also at fault and if this should be my enterprise I will sanction him for that if such a case is brought to my notice even though he has settled with the customer or paid back from his salary.

You're correct that both of them should be blamed,  but the amount the Op is talking about it is a very small amount not even up to $15 so in such situation it would be difficult for the agent to figure out it the bettor would be able to pay back or not, and aside that there's a possibility that this is not the first time that the bettor has borrowed money to place a betting in the hope of winning big.

All they can do now Is to either hope he pays back or they seize some of his properties that's worth more than the amount he's owing and after he pays back the property will be released back to him, if not the agent should bide his money goodbye.

I acknowledge your perspective, but let's not overlook addiction's capacity, gambling included, to commandeer our neural reward circuit, making restraint an uphill task for some.

Your argument appears to reduce this to a matter of personal resilience alone. Decisions matter, yet they aren't the only ingredient. The urgency for heightened public awareness, firm regulations, and tangible support for those wrestling with gambling dependency is undeniable.

Well, it could be that both can be blamed but if the casino does not allow or require proof from the gambler that he has a lot of money, such a thing will not happen. Casino supervision doesn't seem very kind to gamblers, especially if the gambler wants to bet a lot of money but he doesn't have any money in his hands. How could the casinos allow him to play if he didn't have any money? The casinos make money and if there were more people like him, the casinos would not earn any money but would lose. Yes, the gambler and the casino must make an agreement about when the gambler can pay out the money. And someone has to watch over the gambler so he doesn't run out of town where the casinos won't get their money.

As a regular customer, I think the shop owner gave him a high trust score that’s why he manage to exceed his credits. You will understand this if you are a business owner trying to get extra profit to their customer.

Are you sure about the amount involved. 1 Naira = 0.0014USD while the 8K involved is just around 12$. Is this figure is really accurate?


It depends on the worker principle, He can pay it 500NGN per day until he fully paid the debt. That’s the sacrifice he needs to carry for his action. I sometime lose a money worth a month of salary in gambling but stillI manage to recover by slowly earning again.

I'm so confused with the details you gave. Is that agent working from you? Because thats what you said.
You own the site?

Regardless, if the player have any intention of paying, he wouldn't run.
If ever he decided to pay the debt, that would cost exactly the number of working days for him, which is a loss for him but it is only natural since he decided to play more than what he had. It is his responsibility to pay for that.

Also, as long as the agent is correctly following the casino's guidelines and policies he is not in fault.

I feel that the gamblers in this situation are to be blamed primarily. Gambling on credit despite losing the initial balance resulted in this situation. The gamblers should have been more cautious. If he knew that he would struggle to repay the debt then why did he choose to continue? This is why you need to be responsible and disciplined when you are gambling. The debt of ₦8,000 could have been averted if the gamblers had control over their addiction.

The betting agent is not a saint in this situation. He is also responsible for this situation, why did he allow the gambling to continue on credits? I feel he wanted this situation as if he wanted the gamblers to go into this debt. This is a primary example of how local casinos work, they lure gamblers with credits and then become a recovery agent. That is what I feel this betting agent is doing. I hope this issue gets resolved without anyone getting hurt.

The betting agent should be blamed, he should know how gambling is and how addicts can borrow money to gamble or use the money they supposed to use for something else to gamble. I see the betting agent as an inexperienced person and he should learn from his mistake. The person he borrowed money too is not a rich person, and the betting agent will know that. Then why borrow him money? I can borrow someone money if what he wants to use the money for is not risky, unlike gambling that I know can take more from addicts. I will also blame the gambler because he is not disciplined but borrowing money to gamble, that is foolishness that can lead gambling addicts to dept. So I will blame them both. I blame the gambler for not discipline himself and I will blame the betting agent for not knowing that he should not borrow any gambler money.

Can the agent make complaints on your local officers regarding the gambler's debt? If the agent or the casino are allowed to lend money to gamblers so they can gamble more, then they can settle it with the help of the officers. If this is the case, no wonder why he let the gambler borrow more money to gamble because he can settle things legally. But if it's not the case, it will be hard for the agent to get back the gambler's debt unless the gambler isn't the type of person who run away from his debt. Both are at fault, but if it's really a common thing for the agent to lend money, or it's part of their job, they can probably get back the money since they're used to it and it's part of the job.

The mistake of bringing allowing friendship into business happens sometimes, and some of us are guilty of it not just this betting agent. I would have blamed him if it was an underaged gambler that he allowed to gamble on credit, but it was his mature friend who he felt will keep his word. I blame the gambler for taking advantage of the relationship he has with the betting agent to make demand to gamble on credit knowing fully well that he does not have any good plan on how to pay back.

They're not completely to blame for the problem; we can't blame the gambler and ignore the betting agent; they're both to blame for the horrible quarrel on the ground. Simplifying the circumstance is simple: give the gambler a calculated specific period of time to pay the debts owed, while the betting agent should remain calm and wait for the estimated plan time given to the gambler. I understand that this could end up in a salary reduction, but he needs to adapt to the situation, which is exactly what the betting agent faces these days.

This is no new thing to me anymore as this type of occurrence has been q major trend with physical casino houses in my place. Firstly the agent was wrong in allowing him to play as he has already known the type of gambler he is which is the one with a low budget and hoping to win big at the expense of other people's money. The agent would have just stopped him from gambling more since it clearly shows the man is possessing characters of extreme gambling addiction. Any gambling who has the tendency to owe or borrow money just to gambler is an addict and should a way to get help for such acts.

Well, yes, the best thing to do first is to understand each sides on every situation. They should both first be aware that they had mistakes, regardless of who was more wrong, in order to come up with a solution. Setting a date for the gambler to be able to pay the agent would be a good idea but what if the player has no plans of paying it because he wanted to still blame the agent? If there are no waiver involved in this transactions, I guess the agent will be left with no other choice but to accept the circumstances and learn from it.

We do not all think the same way. Some people will be staying on their stand, in every argument. Going to the roots of the problem would help, indeed, but it won't easily work most of the times especially if other party is not cooperating.

I agree with you,  the agent to me is at fault and this is one mistake that many betting agent always get caught up with for many times unlike the online casinos where players may not have the chance to borrow money to gamble with,  the physical casinos always offers this kind of incentive to their regular customers.

But in doing that,  there must be a due diligence check on the ability to make repayments and on time,  this is why the agents are motivated to take this kind of risk but in most cases, they always fall into the wrong hands.

There are dire consequences for agents to suffer if they let someone gamble in debt and let them gamble all day long. It's the agent's fault, but I don't think the agent will go bankrupt because of it. If the gambler defaults on the debt, then the agent does not benefit from the gambler's loss, and it is difficult for someone to repay that amount owed to the casino if the casino does not have guarantees from its customers.

On the other hand this is a good strategy to get a lot of money from customers, especially if the gambler loses. But frankly, this strategy is not recommended because it is clear that a casino should make its customers gamble for fun, not to cause them financial difficulties.

it is the agent's responsibility to verify and guarantee these operations (although he could simply have and agreement with the player and... make a scam).
now, if there are official agreements or laws that help to recover money these should be applied...for sure a worker like this cannot be trusted!

The betting agent sounds extremely shady and probably criminal. I would stay away from such people as far as I can.

The gambler and the agent should both know better, so there is no one party which I would say is to blame. Or at least not to blame alone. Nobody is making the gambler take out a loan from someone so shady and nobody needs to tell the betting agent that his loaning decisions are not only unwise but also can be considered evil.

From my perspective both act out in stupidity and both will get what they deserve in due time.

But thats just my view on this particular matter... ::)

But most of the casino doesn't really care if the gambler will fall into larger debt just to play more, that is their business they are not charity. But yes, agents should be the one to be blamed, they are pushing some people to their limits or they just doing all what they can do so that people will take the bait. It should be not like that, but we should have our own decision and mind as well.

Both the betting agent and the gambler are to be blamed on this,and therefore both of them should bear the loss together. Firstly,if the gambler tells the betting agent that he doesn't have anymore money to bet with and the agent went ahead to allow him play up to eight games. He should have just allowed the gambler to play just two games. I still believe that it wasn't the gambler that decided to stop the bet but it must be the betting agent,because the gambler is an addict and would have love to continue betting because he is chasing his loss.

On the other hand,the gambler shouldn't have come up with the idea of betting to pay later because it isn't a wise decision to bet without money, meaning that he lack self-control on his gambling activities and might bring a great misfortune to his life. He can be arrested for his actions if the police is involved. Debt is debt,no matter what led to the debt.

In this situation I don't think allowing friends and family into business is the cause of the crisis,  what have resulted in this are two things and it has to do with trusting the wrong person and greed and I will go further in explaining why I say so.

1 the gambling agent has trusted the gambler wrongly because there is no agreement or nothing that binds them together just mere words of promises.

2 greed on the part of the gambler because he was supposed to quit playing when he lost his initial balance instead of playing on credit and accumulating to that amount.

Both are equally guilty. This complaint can be taken to a different level depending on one's point of view. That is, the gambler can be identified as a big criminal because he did not repay the loan he took. Again, it is wrong if the lender gave such a large loan to a addicted gambler. So I think it is best to treat both as equally guilty. But naturally it is to be noted that the lender must be aware of the loan amount and must have good ideas about the Borrower. The work is not finished only by giving the loan, it is also his responsibility to collect it properly. It should be remembered that even after doing all the legal documents, if the borrower becomes insolvent, the lender will fail to collect his money. Maybe if he shows the legal documents he will go to jail but the lender will not get his money. So the financial condition of the gambler must be considered while sending the loan.

Both of them are, but I’m leaning towards the Betting Agent/Betting Facility being in the wrong here more than the gambler. Two reasons really. One, allowing people to gamble on creditbisna death sentence as it only reels them to further lose more money in the process, courtesy of losses and debts piling up. That in itself is bot good for business since you can’t pay the bills with smiles.

Another, the act of allowing credit on their end is entirely done for exploitative purposes. They wanted gamblers to spend more money on their games, and then force their hand once they lost everything and can’t pay their debts. Eventually when things are cleared and the debt is paid they’ve earned more than what a regular gambling firm does, one that doesn’t allow gambling on credit mind you.

Only solution I can see here is actually taking this to legal matters so a settlement can be made if ever, otherwise the gambler will not have any gall to pay that debt, and the gambling casino will continue with this unethical business practice.

I think it depends on the situation and if the borrower does not pay his debt then the victim would be the agent.  I do not know if the agent exploits the gambler here but if the gambler is well aware of his action, we cannot blame the agent if the agent explains everything to the gambler and does not exploit the person due to possible gambling addiction.  It is always a two way story so jumping into a conclusion that the agent is at fault is not a good thing, IMO.  I think it is best to know both the story first before concluding anything.

On the time that betting agent had able to speak up on the boss of such company or someone who hires that man then it would be just understandable that he should be called in regarding the situation on which it

would be most likely ending up on settlement on which the employer of such gambler would really be needing to pay up on what he owe but of course it would be still depending if he allows about salary deduction
because personal things and problems on which a certain company shouldnt really be getting involved with and since gambling is a personal leisure then it would be not that shocking that his boss
wont really be that touching up this area but its not that bad on telling him about that the betting agent is looking for him because of some debt.

As long that certain gambler or guy would be having a job then there's always a chance that agent would really be getting his money back but dont expect that it would really be
given in just 4 days but rather it would be a week or couple because we know that it isnt really that sufficient on having this amount and living on day to day basis.

Under no circumstance will a betting agent allow a gambler to be on credit. If it is to be done, the betting agent is to have himself blamed for the outcome.

This kind of circumstance has happened in my locality before. a man who bets so much on visual games that he sells his properties and even leaves the betting shop owing a sizable amount of play in the process. He adjusted his movement to another angle as a result of the debt he owes the betting agent. not to use or interact with the betting agency once more.

Given how long the loan had been outstanding, the betting agency took extraordinary measures and had the gambler jailed. That is how the betting agent was able to obtain the gambler's funds. He wouldn't have obtained it up until this point if not for that arrest.

The best course of action in this scenario is to call the police, who should then come and take the gambler into custody so that he can be forced to pay his obligation.

This is really strange! I don't know how they can allow him to bet with money he doesn't even own. For example let's say you have 0.5 BTC and you lose it while gambling, then the casino gives you more money to bet and if you lose that as well, you'll end up in debt. I have never seen a casino that gives money to its customers without some kind of agreement for repayment that's why It's kinda strange.  ???
If the gambler is trustworthy, he would work for four days and pay off his debts. However simply if he's not trustworthy I don't think he will pay but if they're legal papers in between, I think the casino could make him pay if they have legal proof and take legal action. If he refuses to pay they could potentially even make him go to jail.

This casino is preying on small people and this is not good if he keeps doing people will complaint against him, gamblers are gamblers if you offer him a loan to play he will take it and hope that he wins to pay the loan

There's also a probability that the worker denies paying him or takes longer to pay him because he needs to provide for his family first and he can only give what is excess on his salary, even if you take it in court, the judge could favor the worker because he is a victim here, the casino agent should know better who he will give a loan.

I will blame the betting agent that don't know his work and allowed a customer to gamble on credit to payback later. How will the gambler be able to pay up his debt when his daily pay is one-quarter of his debt. Borrowing money to gamble or gambling on credit is not a good practice because,you will become a slave to gambling and this act can make one stagnant in life. I don't buy such idea and will never advise anyone to do so,unless it is a sure bet that must win.

In every business which it does involved money then it would really be not that ideal on having that credit feature on which someone could make out a promise that they could make use or get a loan for them to gamble by just simply make out some promise and since this is an avid player then there might be some exemptions or considerations but not something that could be applied
because if things turns out to be sour then this would usually happen because not all would really be that responsible when it comes on paying up their loans on which it would really be
not shocking that there are ones who would really be not minding about their obligations until they would get sued out or been reminded. If that guy on the op mentioned
is responsible then he would really be paying up those money that he had borrowed or loaned out.

^ It could be I contemplated the likelihood of the gambler returning to settle his debt, considering his low-income earnings. It was revealed that the gambler earned ₦‎2,000 per day as a helper on a construction site. In order to repay the ₦‎8,000 debt, the gambler would need to work for four days without incurring any additional expenses. Given these circumstances, it appeared unlikely that the gambler would be able to promptly repay the debt. Considering the gambler's meager income and the significant debt he accumulated, the possibility of the betting agent recovering the money in the near future seemed uncertain. The agent might have to explore alternative approaches, such as negotiating a reasonable repayment plan with the gambler or potentially accepting partial payments over an extended period, taking into account the customer's financial constraints.

Yes, its not something big on which it would be settled out properly since the gambler does know that he could really be able to repay it up on a few days of work.It is really just that a waste though because

paying up something just because gambling rather than on buying a food or something that correlates into his living which is more worth but well its his money then he had the full rights on what he would do about it.

There are really just that people who cant just resist on playing more and tending to take some loan but this one isnt really that severe compare into those people who do lost up tons of money
and the worst its a loaned one which it would make it more hard to cope up and resolved it out. On this case then it wont really be somethat that severe which it is really just that
right that it had been completely stopped until it would become that severe.

I would also judge same thing and query the ineptitude of the gambling agent to allow customer play a game on credit, a game as such like visual that only last within minute for a game to be over and the losser can bet more times and still lose because visual is just a programmed game and strictly based on luck that is devoid of prediction.

Anyway, to cut the long story to be short, the agent made a mistake that only ignorance would not be enough to exonerate him. Usually they are not permitted to allow customers on credit, in fact it is at there own peril for that to happen if they are not able to recover the money before the close of work because their account must balance before they leave the office. That is their rule and condition to be employed. So the agent is requesting the money not because the company have not deducted from him already but he wants to recover his money back, except there was a way he hid the credit from the boss otherwise he would pay with his money the same day or forfeit part of his belonging like his phone until the debt was paid. I'm talking of a critical example where an agent called me for help to rescue on the financial credit he could not recover for the day. So , the rule is made already to the agent not to permit credit or face the consequences.


He has no choice than to pay his debt. The betting agent can retrieve his money through you if he can get you to sign undertaking for him that he will continue coming to the site and work while you make the payment to the agent until the money was completed. If I were the one as betting agent, that would be a better way to get back the money because the gamler loser if allowed without any form of threat that will hold him, he won't come back to the site.

The agent acted with second intentions. He knew the gambler was avid to play and that he didn't have more money left, but at same time he saw on this an opportunity to trap the gambler into a long term debt with the local casino. Ethically he is wrong, because he took advantage of someone vulnerable, although for the law it means nothing. It's still the gambler's fault to have accepted credit. It was a conscious decision to accept credit and now he will have to pay the consequences for his choice.

I really don't know if he will manage to earn the money somehow to re-pay the casino. Probably he will have to ask for help from family, friends or even the local bank, otherwise we don't know what the agent can do against his physical integrity... It's a very serious situation he finds himself in and I've already seen many people who were murdered for not paying their loans back.

Well, it's much easier to fault the betting agent as, should henot have allowed the customer some credit facilities, then there would have been no reason or need for any catastrophe.
Still, this guy in question (customer) is a supposedly regular. Someone known to the agent to be credit worthy and probably might have tried something similar in the past and sorted it out. Maybe this time was a chance to learn some hard lesson.

I would blame the gambler for reasons not to have gambled responsibly. That's why gambling is reserved for sensible adults. Those who can say 'No to themselves' and stand by it. Clearly your staff isn't that person and let's greed get the best of him.

He should pay up what he owes, he incurred the debt and is liable to pay.

The person who acted foolishly in this situation was the owner of the betting store, perhaps he is new to the gambling business. The phrase "No bet on credit" is always prominently displayed on every betting establishment. The only circumstance in which bets may be placed on credit is when the bettor possesses property that is of sufficient value to serve as collateral for the payment of the debt and has a set amount of time—usually 48 hours—to pay it off. If the bettor defaults, the property will be sold and the proceeds used to settle the debt.

When you allow a gambler play on credit without any collateral it will be difficult to get the money back. The shop owner made a huge mistake and the only way out is to conclude to let him pay some percentage for a certain period until payment is completed.

They are both at fault here, but in two different ways.  First, the gambler is at fault because he made a deal/contract to pay back the funds that he gambled.  It doesn't matter whether he won or lost, he owed those funds to the casino manager/store owner, plain and simple. 

Now the store owner/gambling boss made a poor decision allowing the guy to take out credit that he knew he'd probably have a hard time giving back to him if he didn't win his bets.  That's just dumb on his part to loan out the money.

But the gambler is 100% at fault here.

well, maybe this is one of the mistakes of gamblers, maybe if the gambler has control and responsibility for every bet he makes, it certainly won't be like this. because we know that casino agents only offer something special for their customers and it is only the gambler who must refuse the credit offer.
if the gambler could control himself not to use large sums and control himself not to borrow more than he could, I think everything would be fine.
but nevertheless you said something true that the debt still has to be paid and it has indeed become a valuable lesson for gamblers not to make the same mistake.

I would say both are at fault because the worker should have known the risks before taking credit as he was going over budget which shows he's addicted towards gambling and the agent is also at fault who let him play with credit even after knowing his deposit value.The worker has borrowed money but agent should not give it in these cases where pure luck is involved so recovery becomes difficult Unless they have some installment plans to pay it off.Also advice worker to be in his limits otherwise he would loose everything in gambling.

I assume the worker feels great pleasure from gambling and forgets that he has suffered many losses. When someone has been playing gambling for too long and still sees a balance in his account, he will think he still has money so he can use it to gamble. It is a mistake to continue playing, especially if the money is loan money from an agent or someone else. But the agent should have looked at the history or track record of the worker to find out how his financial position has been. If the worker never gambles to the point of using big money, the agent should not allow him to gamble beyond his limits.

In this case they are both wrong and casino will suffer losses because of them, if it is traditional casino they can give collaterals so that they can give something when they don't have money left. I think sometimes agent did some personal details digging before getting a prospect if they not it will be sure that they will encounter this kind of people.

Of course, if you take a loan or if you owe someone money then you have to pay but I don't think its ok to demand payment if the player cannot afford to pay the amount, he will only pay based on what is excess on his salary and the casino agent will have to wait for that, here in our country debt will not put you in jail, the worker can only give a promissory note and his payment is on his ability to pay, that's lesson learned for the agent that he should pick who will give a loan.
If I were his manager I will fire him for lack of good judgment.

The agent should position itself outside the circle, it should be between the worker responsible for taking bets from the customer who has incurred losses by betting on credit. The primary duty of the worker attending to customers is to strictly prohibit gamblers from betting on credit. However, it is possible that the worker may have been influenced by the gratuities received when a gambler successfully wins bets. It seems that the gambler has been tipping the worker each time he cashes out his winnings, following the customary practice of physical gambling, and the worker may have overlooked the professional etiquette of their role.

The only situation in which I believe the agent would intervene is if the gambler refuses to settle their debts. In such cases, the involvement of law enforcement becomes inevitable, and a resolution must be reached between the worker, the gambler, and the agent, one of them(the gambler and the worker) will be responsible for paying off the accumulated debt owed to the agent.

If I don't misunderstand the agent/casino and the bettors, the basic problem is credit from the agent to the user, because he only has 1k balance, because of the kindness of the agent, because he is a regular customer, of course the agent trusts 8k capital to bet, hoping that the user can win more than 8k, but damn he loses it all.

For that, if asked who was at fault, for me of course the user was wrong, he was greedy and didn't consider the risk of loss, he didn't think about taking 8k funds with what he paid for it, profit if you win and if you lose the bet as it has happened, of course the risk must be borne by the user to pay the credit funds.

The agent is not wrong, because he trusts the user as a regular customer, of course he gives the credit, it's still fortunate that the agent employed the user for several days to pay off the credit, that person worked without a salary, because the debt had been cut off.

This case you've outlined indeed highlights pressing ethical, legal, and socio-economic questions. The betting agent, capitalizing on the gambler's weakness with full awareness, dismisses moral considerations – a reprehensible act of exploiting vulnerability for personal gain. Yet, as you astutely acknowledged, laws don't always parallel moral guidelines.

Projecting the gambler's ability to settle the debt is challenging, given his low-income situation. It's a multi-layered socio-economic issue, leading to financial uncertainty and, in grave circumstances, endangering personal security. The potential fallout could be severe, from strained relationships to mental health deterioration and even violent disputes.

The two of them are at fault, why will the you gamble on debt if not that the person is addicted, and why will the agent allow the gambler to gamble on debt. But most agents in traditional gambling shops are among the set of people that are encouraging gambling addiction, if the agent didn't allow the gambler to continue gambling then he wont have gambled on debt, just because he want to make his money, he gave him the opportunity to gamble on debt and pay later which at the end, the gambler those not have any means to pay back yet.

You said the casino will suffer losses because of then, but you are wrong, the casino is not going to suffer any loss, the casino will have to use the agents salary to pay for the debt the gambler is owing, so the agent and the gambler will have to look for how they will settle themselves, but the debt wont affect the casino, rather its going to affect the gambling agent.

The agent didn't think about anything else because what he thought was the profit for his customer, however he was wrong because having or not having money shouldn't give loans, especially for gambling, and to be honest I've just heard of agents giving loans to gambling customers, because agents should know better what are the risks.
who gambles, I think it's no longer necessary to talk about that what he did was wrong, although maybe he got great pleasure from the game.
Now for me, both have to bear the risk, the gambler has to bear the risk of the lost money that he played with before he made the loan, and the agent also has to bear the risk if the gambler does not return the money he borrowed.

It's a complex situation because was the decision of the customer to wager with credit. A responsible gambler would stop after losing the first $1k and not keep going until losing $8k, that wasn't a smart move at all, but here the problem is that we don't know how persistent was the working trying to persuade the client to get more money to bet. For me that description sounds as rage betting trying to recover with a martingale that goes terribly wrong.

But if you want to be real, this is absolutely not the case. Tendencies are the gambler will be lending again another money by another or the same person. Then he will risk it to the betting agent. Here in my country this often happens. Until the gambler loses it all again now with bigger debt. And then weeks later, that gambler is nowhere to be found now. This is hard to believe actually, but this is truly happening. They say, that before even the dice roll in the game, they already know who will be the loser. And that is scary.

Both should be blamed actually. If the bettor is a responsible gambler, then he should know when to stop when he sees his balance is already used up. Gambling will make you lose more especially if you decide to gamble more. And on the side of the betting agent, though I know it’s his job to offer some credit, but he should also be aware that taking advantage with the gambler in this situation will cause the gambler to think unreasonably and that he will end up with a very wrong decision. So if the gambler can’t pay him this time, then he should know how to be patient and just wait until the gambler is able to pay.

Obviously, the betting agent has some closeness with the gambler because I do not think that he will do like this to every other gambler at this shop. Depending on where you live, you should speak to a lawyer and see if the matter would hold any weight in the court of law. If it won't, then the betting shop owner must count this as one of the losses encountered in this business. Additionally, the next employee to work for him should be micromanaged to ensure that this incident doesn't repeat itself.

In my opinion, the practice of gambling in debt borders on lawlessness and if a gambler will not pay back money for a long time, he will have problems. I personally think that if he won't pay back his gambling debt, he will be taken over by tough guys who will gladly force a debtor to take out a loan or borrow money from someone else for 10-15% of the amount owed. This scheme is as old as the world and there is no point in proving anything in court if you played in a casino with someone else's money and lost it. A debt is a debt.

yes, that's because gamblers have no control over the games they play. It's possible that the casino manager provides free spins or some bonuses at the gambler's credit for playing the game. but if it happens like that it is only to make the gambler play longer, not to spend more money when he wants to avenge his defeat.
the situation will only hurt the gambler more.

Yeah,, indeed dept is a dept, but in this case, I can't go without blaming the betting agent, on no account was he supposed to allow the gambler gamble on credit, knowing the nature of gambling and how humans react to such losses, it is always very much easier for almost every one to pay off a loan borrowed to solve a real life Issue, than pay a loan borrowed to gamble, most especially if the money is lost in the course of gambling, but then, it's easy if the gambler won, atleast from the proceeds of the winning, he can easily settle the loan and keep the profit, but if the money is lost, like in the case where the betting agent allowed the gambler to bet on credit, it takes some one who Is extra ordinarily disciplined to settle such credit, as its almost the same as being forced to give away money to someone when they have not rendered any service to you, or being forced to pay someone even the service the person rendered to you is a very bad one and does not deserve to be paid for.

Maybe they do grant out such giving some credit for someone to play more on just on having the belief that a certain gambler might really be that getting addicted even more and might be using up his entire life
savings on playing gambling and this is why they do grant up some amount of credit on which a certain individual could make use of and this is why it do keep on piling up.Good thing is that they do able to stop
it on certain few folds and not granting thousands of dollars for a certain gambler. We dont know on what are their criterias before you could get such credit but most of the time or simply talking about the standard
operation then it would really be that not so common on granting out these kind of opportunities or features on which you could gamble out on having that credit.
We know that they are running a business on here and it is really just that cant be possible that they would be granting out such request considering that not anyone are capable on repaying them back on time.

When it comes to a complaint for a recovery for a sum of money, if the person cannot fulfill his obligation on time which is stipulated by the judge, then the sheriff can proceed against the personal or real property of the debtor in this case. If the person who gambled cannot fulfill his obligation of paying all of the sums required, then the judge may order for any of his properties to be sold in favor of the creditor-agent in this case.

At the end of the day, it depends on the ruling of the judge on how he would perceive the case depending on the stipulated facts. But the fact remains that the debtor has a debt that incurred during his gambling sprees.

No matter how high or low his monetary income is, he has the obligation of paying his obligation on the stipulated date and failure of such would make his personal/real properties liable for the debt.

If the gambler haven't requested for credit and if the gambling agent have given credit, then the mistake is with the gambling agent. He knew well that the gambler have already lost, even after that triggering him to try for some win is kind of trap. Here the gambling agent is wrong, he shouldn't have given credit. What he initially lost is nothing compared to what he lost after receiving funds. If the gambler had been left with the loss from his own money, it couldn't affect him big. Now its a big problem for him.

Whether or not a gambler asks for money from a gambling agent is not a matter. Because after losing a gambler will want to borrow money to recover his losses. But it must be ascertained whether the gambler can afford to pay the gambling agent otherwise it would be difficult for them to recover the money. Gambling platforms will lose their business with in moment if they issue such loans in the hope of quick profits. A agent should not provide more than 2x money as loan.

but I'm sure this gambling agent has a way to charge its customers who already have debts to the gambling agent. like the previous case when a man gambled and made credit to a gambling agent and after that the gambler refused to pay and the gambling agent threatened to tell his family that the person had many debts in gambling so there was no other way but to pay off the debt.

but from the problem that OP wrote, I still think whether this is just a gambling agent's plan to make a profit. and if true, what is the reason for the gambling agent to give credit to that person.
because in my opinion gambling agents at least know the person's occupation and income before giving gambling credit.

---

Yes, that should be a consideration before they give credit for gambling, considerations such as how much money gamblers make from their work in a day, week or month, so they can know what number if they give credit, a gambler can pay it back.
But the bad thing is in this circle, especially for the gambler, let's say he can afford to pay all his bills that he spends in gambling, but will he be able to meet his daily needs because he will spend most of his income to pay off debts,



Agents will only think about the benefits they will get when gamblers ask them for credit and that has been the goal of the agents from the start, I mean they want to drain even the gambler's savings. But what's wrong is that the agent doesn't see first whether he still has enough money to pay off the credit they give him or not. Maybe what the agent considers here is that the gambler has a job they feel they can afford to pay off all the credit he has.

We will do anything to take advantage of any little opportunities that emerge; gambling activities do not concern me because I am not a gambler; instead, I am solely focused on bitcoin trading. Unnecessary complications develop on a regular basis in the gaming industry, and we have the stubborn desperate addicted gamblers who are willing to go to great lengths only to put bets on gambling. They have no conscience since they are addicted, and they have a kind of hope that convinces them that whatever game they bet on will undoubtedly result in profits, so they ignore market losses.

Yeah, that's the problem when the offer of a loan is just beside you. Even occasional gamblers might take that bait considering they could back whatever money they lose from whatever game it is.
The agent has a lot of mistakes here. First off, why is he there? He is obviously looking for a prey. Why is he monitoring the gambler and he knew exactly when to come in? If he ain't been there, nothing could've happened like a loan or borrowing money that is unsure to be paid. The gambler could've just taken off and called it a day and yet "the offer" came like it was a miracle, like he was an angel sent by god.
That's just too wrong, there's is obviously a purpose, a bad one, an evil intent, and if this goes to investigation they might even try to sue the place of gambling itself, because it looks like it's all scripted.

Basically, agents may not lend money to gamblers or allow people who don't have money to play gambling at the casino. In addition, even if a casino lends money to a gambler, it must ensure that the gambler returns it on time and check the person's background before handing over the money. And the casino must ask for guarantees from the person as a replacement if that person cannot return the loan. But that was the first story I heard. Maybe there is a casino that lends money to gamblers. But maybe that's normal in offline casinos.

The ethical concerns of sanctioning credit-based gambling are deeply impacting. This fuels the addiction cycle, escalating the difficulty for individuals to escape their damaging patterns.

The emotional burden of repaying a loan for necessities versus one squandered in gambling is immense. The latter feels like compensating for a 'service' that has been detrimental, amplifying feelings of remorse and desperation.

And yeah, we need more stringent rules to hold gambling institutions accountable and impede destructive tendencies. This entails constraints on credit gambling and proactive actions for sensible gambling, shielding vulnerable individuals from gambling's harmful aftermath.

In all senses of thing,  the gambling agent is at fault because since the gambler is already at a loss why then tempt him to make more bets on credit and this is what motivated the gamblers to have accumulated that amount of debt in the long run, but also we have to blame the gambler too because allowing your urge to recover a lose to take the best part of your reasoning,  it can lead lead to more devastating outcome such as this one.

I believe that by now, both the gambling agent and the gambler would have learned the lessons from the outcome of thos events.

So there would be some negotiations in speaking about adjustments on how those credits should be repaid, he wouldnt be able to pay it all in one go considering that a certain gambler would be having their own expenses
on which it would really be just normal that there would be adjustments but of  course it would only take a few days considering that he is earning 1k on daily basis on local currency. If he had some debt of 8k then it wont really be taking too much time. I was surprised that there are really companies whom do consider on giving out such credit or letting their players play with borrowed money or something like that.
If this one would be coming through a betting agent then for sure it would really be taking up some blame if those obligations had been failed to repay on time.
There's should be no considerations on letting gamblers borrowed funds because this is a business but if this one turns out to be some sort of complimentary? It is really just that much of a favor.

say about the error, for me both are wrong. and if say about profit i think both get equal profit.
regarding these errors and advantages, I don't need to explain, for sure we know that gambling agents get long-term benefits from these gamblers and the gamblers themselves benefit from being able to gamble using credit and being able to satisfy their gambling addiction.
but here the bad luck is with the gambler because the gambler's profit ends badly without any victory and has to return the debt that has been obtained from the credit.

and you are telling the truth that from this problem we can get a valuable lesson that the importance of self-control not to be too greedy in gambling or accept any offers from gambling agents.

There's a way we could get more familiar with each other to the extent of taking the risk to neglect the normal procedure or protocols that guide or restricts us from doing some certain things but due to our relationship and rapport level we have over each other, we try to on our own way bend some rules and protocols to make things work for us as to achieving our personal desires, the agent in this has done what even his blood siblings couldn't have done but he eventually proof him wrong as against next time because the gambler is not faithful enough.

As I put my shoe on the gambling agent, I will hunt this gambler as well and ask for payment. Because in the first place, I don't push that worker to gamble but what he did is too much and getting out of control from his addiction. A settlement like an installment kind of payment is probably will work. But to ask whom to blame in this case, nothing but this worker. Because if he was able to control himself and just gamble the amount he have in his pocket, this never get worse but he choice to do that and the results are terrible.

    -  It seems like it's the agent's fault, because he knows that he only has 1000 and then he allowed him to owe him 8000. The agent immediately blundered. The question is why is it allowed? because this is a regular customer and he thought that he would not be cheated so he trusted?

If it were me, I would not allow that, we know that many people are blinded by money, and do bad things because of money. So the agent is really lacking.

What about working on a job other than loaning money? I guess that seems a better solution. Even if it takes time for the agent to get all his money, at least he was being paid small from time to time. That must be better than not paying at all.

Indeed, gambling is not for everyone, not only because some people have a psychological problem and can easily get hooked on it or they can't accept their defeat easily but there are also people who are not on the legal age yet. I wouldn't put all the blame to the gambler but also to the agent because he let the gambler play on credit. It's a lesson for him to not allow such act anymore but if he still wants to then he can follow your advice there.

Indeed, basically gambling only applies to those who are over 20 years of age and who have a more mature mindset. But on the other hand, environmental and social factors will greatly impact a person. It cannot be denied that those who are underage can get involved in gambling. In my opinion, we cannot fully blame agents because there are lots of gambling sites, not just offline ones. but many are also online such as slot machines. In the process, there is no difference between the two, especially for slot games where everyone can do it anytime and anywhere. So I mean how can an agency prevent someone who is underage from gambling if the agency doesn't have regulations to prohibit that that is beyond them? What I mean is about online gambling such as slots where everyone can enter it anytime, anywhere, and don't care about people who are underage. In the end, I think most of the blame is on the gambler.

Aside from self control which we already knew on gambling do’s. The agent’s greediness on feeding more credit to a players that losing more money is the moral of the story. He gets what he deserves because he is taking advantage on someone addiction for a profit from credit. I think this credits has an interest and the agent probably knew that players has a stable source of income since he is already a regular.

To be honest, I don't know where to start to examine the case you are talking about. however, regarding gambling a betting shop. it seems, there is a high probability that the person you are talking about knows each other with the betting agent. or, there could be other factors that cause this case to occur. maybe, there was negligence committed by the betting shop operator. because, it would be very unlikely if a betting agent gave credit of up to 8k without knowing that the gambler only had a 1k balance. obviously, this is outside the procedures that apply wherever the casino is. except, there is a conspiracy that the gambler and the betting shop know each other.

By the way, I'm not sure what I'm talking about, because I don't really understand the essence of this matter and what gambling the gambler is actually doing. however, I'm trying to simplify the case related to 1k credit to 8k. from here, we can already see that there is an irregularity going on. so my assumptions as I said in this post.

That's a very bizarre scenario and I would tell the agent that it is not appropriate to harass staff in a workplace environment. In my country that would be illegal and result in the person being potentially arrested for such harassment. Your worker clearly had problems however and I would assess whether they are suitable for the job. If people are this bad at managing their finances, have such a lack of self control then who knows what other risks they might be willing to take in the workplace - theft? Taking shortcuts with safety? However the gambling agent shows very poor form in deciding to chase a debt in this way and it should not be allowed.

From what I understand, the agent didn't gave 8k at one go but he gave small amounts first. The agent didn't hope for the bettor to win but what he only want is for the customer to pay on the designated dates. I don't think the gambler don't consider the risk of losing because he just lost earlier but indeed he was greedy. At that time, he is only thinking for a revenge but unfortunately, it didn't end up well.

The agent is only doing a business here or a kind of side job by letting the customers take a loan and the bettor in the story is only just a victim. None of them can be blamed but it would be inappropriate if the gambler will ran away for his obligations.

The gambler priority was only to avenge his losses earlier, afterall he recorded gigantic losses, in my opinion the betting agent has no idea although he made faults because he knows the risks involved in gambling and still supports someone to gamble after witnessing the gambler losing steadily. They're both at fault, before gambling, atleast know the amount of losses you can take in and never to be too desperate to bet on games, do take time and mapped our good strategy, and if it doesn't go as plan, leave it, tomorrow is another opportunity to try again.

The fact that the betting agent have fucked up by allowing the gamblers to bet and play games on credit make it look as if the agent already have a forhand understanding with the gambler before that incidence for him to have allow the gambler to acumulate such debts trying to cash up with his loses which landed him into a bigger debt.

So in a clear term of the are at fault aince one can not blame one and leaving out the other since it takes two to commit such crrime, but only the business owner will determine what becomes the ountcome6of both of them.since the agent already know that it will be hard for him to recover from such mistake of allowing the player to gamble on credit which is against the business policy of not credit no play or bets.

Indeed! Both are responsible to what happened as this won't happen if either one of them didn't agree to one another.
As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango." So yes, both should be held responsible about this situation.
Since the money can be paid in few days only, it is possible to recover such amount.
However, that is, if the gambler decided to come back and pay for his debts. It is not much, so it depends on the gambler here.
Now, this is a very good lesson for the betting agent. Maybe, he is also hoping that the gambler will win and pay him as soon as gets the winning.
Unfortunately, it is gambling, so losing is more likely to happen. This will be a very good lesson to both individuals here.

I think this has become a risk for gamblers when they will carry out gambling activities. In this case, they already know that gambling is always at risk, not only because gambling is something that is uncertain, but also because there are indeed most platforms that want to get more profit from their users, and they can use many things to make it happen. It's impossible if the agent wants to lose. So yes, it's a risk. therefore, if not ready to lose money is very suitable then it's better to stay away from gambling.

You are definitely right on this one on which this two person should really be held accountable on the things that do happen because the did really make out that kind of agreement.Good thing that had made out by
that betting agent is that he didnt really grant up huge amount of credit on a certain gambler on which he had just simply assure that he would be able to pay on the time that he would mess up even more. We know that there's no such thing about giving out some opportunity for the house to give credit into a certain gambler unless if this is a VIP perks then it would be understandable but if not then it would be a good bonus or
feature to have but in todays business then it would be impossible for casino to give out such chance for these gamblers knowing that they would likely to lose all the way and all the time.
If they would really be giving those credits then they are really putting themselves on possible risks on not being getting paid in time because if a certain gambler losses then recovery would really be still questionable.

Some gamblers are so confident that their next game is going to win and because of such confidence, their go on to the point of staking above rheir capacity and even limit, just like in this case, what i can see here is that, most times this case is sign of early gambling addictions.

Because i dont see the reason why someone while losing still will continue to oush further to the point of gambling on credits, we're as he was not surpose to even exust his entire balnce talk more of playing on credits.

in gambling confidence is necessary but if self-confidence is too high and too aggressive, that is a big mistake. with a nature like this, gamblers are always driven by curiosity when defeat occurs and it's strange that people like this think about bad things, such as when they lose in a row, they think with high confidence that this loss will make a big win. unknowingly that day was an unlucky day for him but they were always stubborn with their beliefs causing great losses by thinking of something big.

the reason I said before is that gamblers who have hopes or think about something big from gambling will certainly always have a way to continue betting and when the budget runs out gambling agents offer credit and of course gamblers will be happy to receive credit and still hope to get big win to pay off it all but end up losing again.

Certainly, heightened self-belief, coupled with unchecked gambling, can set a course for disaster. This overconfidence, a term in cognitive psychology, often conceals the intrinsic unpredictability of gambling results. Paradoxically, this same confidence can contribute to their defeat.

Moreover, a succession of losses, mistakenly viewed as a sign of impending victory, is often named the 'Gambler's Fallacy.' This misconception, assuming past defeats can shape future outcomes, reflects twisted logic.

Your observation of gamblers using credits to sustain betting underscores the bleak reality of gambling addiction. It reflects a perpetual cycle fueled by false hope and a ceaseless chase for a significant win, underlining the urgent need for regulatory intervention.

The Betting agent is to be blame for allow the gambler to play on credit, which is a big risk because if the gambler decide not to come to that shop to bet ,the betting agent will be the one to loose. But I don't know how some gamblers like to gamble on credit in some gambling center, hoping that the last  bet will help them to recover the amount of money he has gamble than to loose again because such gamblers don't know their limit in gambling. I don't borrow money on gambling center because I always budget amount of money I will spend on gambling in a day, and once the money finish without a good results, I will not gamble through out that day than to continue the next day till I recover the money back.

I very much agree with you on the points you made, it is the same thing I've stood up for on my previous comments, game provider made a very big mistake by allowing the gambler to carry out gambling without money,, and if such a case was in the court, I did say that the game provider first and foremost should be punished severely for allowing gambling on credit.

When you offer an already addicted gambler the opportunity to keep gambling without money, they are Everly ready to grab such opportunity with both hands, and that can even drive them into an addiction that is way worster than the current one.

It is good that you have a self control , it is so sad that some gamblers who used the money they get and end up losing too much, there's no other thing that they can do but to sell their belongings. I think both can be blamed but mostly it will be the betting agent since he is the one who let that thing happen and let that person believe in him.

The problem is that, not many who think that they have self control can actully enforced that into their gambling events m, because i have experience a number of cases of addictions where the one addicted will say he have overcome his addictions or he moved on but will slide back in no time.

Same with those that claims to have limits i gambling but once they start playing, they tend to go overboard and ignore all the red lines and limits set by them.

This must have been the case for gamblers who run into multiple debts due to a lack of self-restraining.

Betting agent wouldn't really be making up those steps or actions if theres no approval which is from the owner of the said casino or whatever platform he's been working. Unless if he's the owner then you do have all
the rights and control on who would really be given those kind of benefits or features about giving some credit on a certain gambler because these agents wont really be just giving out those kind of actions if they werent been approved on the first place and this is why there's no problem on betting agent on this one but its just that right that they would really be trying out to make that gambler pay on what he had used.
You have spent something that you dont own which it is normal that you would really be needing to pay for it.

Someone who doesn't have self-control or discipline will do something like that, those who don't have more money when they have lost everything might stop but those who get the opportunity to gamble more just like in this case where the agent let the gambler gamble with credits, in such situations, someone with no self-control can obviously not be able to stop until they lose also the credits they were given because they are probably addicted to gambling.

The gambler must be a regular customer of the agent and that is probably the reason why he allowed him to gamble with credits, but still, even if a gambler is a regular customer, they shouldn't allow to gamble with credits without taking anything from them as collateral to make sure that they pay the money back on time.

The way I see it, the casino owner got the guy indebted to him and it's not like the debt is going to disappear anytime soon. It will continue to exist and weigh upon the gambler. If the gambler lives and works nearby he can be forced to pay up either in cash or in favors. He may be asked to work for free, or give up stuff that he owns, like a motorcycle or a car... The casino owner doesn't lose here, it's like he just got a slave for nothing. He also can't be blamed because he offered a credit and the gambler took it so it was a deal between them.

You have a very good point there,  because, from the action of the gambling agent, he seems to be comfortable and used to the incident because even though I try to Enlightened him of the danger of his action and how he risk losing the money or paying from his salary he was acting as if it not possible and that brought me to the conclusion that his mode of operations.

And just like you rightly said,  his aims may be to enslave the gambler truly and if care is not taken,  this is not the first time they are having such an agreement to allow the player to gamble on credit.

I don't know how your local laws work but aren't they supposed to making some sort of insurance that will guarantee amount of money will be paid by insurance company and later claimed from customer through legal measures? If you take a loan from a bank you get option with or without insurance. I think it must be necessary in casinos to avoid such situations. I also think its very very weird that gambling companies let customers take a loan directly from themselves. Its very risky in my opinion.

They are real criminals. Btw is it really meaningless to report them to the police? I guess, probably yes, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to operate such a shady business in the daylight. Probably the police gets some money and shuts mouth.
By the way, the most clever thing to do in this case is to attach small camera in front of your cloth, I mean spy camera. When something like that is captured and uploaded online, police and government has no other choice but to catch criminals. In this case, that person will definitely is risking his life, so, that's the perfect time to buy plane ticket and move in a new country and ask for asylum.

But it would really vary on which these agents or owners would definitely be trying out to give those kind of offering or option into a certain particular person who might be having that other possession or something that

he could really be able to benefit out which it isnt limited about on what he owned but also into the connections which he might be able to mold up on the time that he would really be having a good control on a certain
person on which it would really be a great advantage for them once they do really be able to handle out their necks to those people who have indebted to them. It is true that houses wont really be giving
out that so easily when it comes on giving credit knowing that gamblers wouldnt most likely be able to repay it on time.

If they are really that careless on taking up such decision then it might really be able to affect the business which it isnt something that ideal if we do speak about revenue or something like this.

That is a personal question  for the gambler because how his expected to pay the money is no man's business,  and what is exoectedbis that he pays the money in whatever way he hopes to pay.
Now I believe the bet shop attendant allowed the gambler play games upto such amount because of trust and let the principles of preferential treatment  come to play but I'm sure the gambler missed used this trust now and it will be very hard for that shop  and it's attendants to trusybsuch a person  again. I think the best way to recover this money is to hold some valuables from the gambler possibly worthing thrice the amount gambled, and this will give him the drive to repay his debt.

we all know that corruption is everywhere even the police might get there own share from that which is not a new thing. Things are really happening and if we start talking about them, many of us that are gamblers will get discouraged and never want to gamble again because there are so many things going wrong that we might not be aware of because of how hidden they are. There are many scam casinos that are still operating till now collect and stealing fro customers funds. Sometimes they settle police too so that they will not get prosecuted as soon as possible.

Depending on where you live in order to lend money businesses need to have the necessary license, if the casino in question does not have that permission then it is likely that the person working for you can get away with it, however if the casino does in fact have the license to extend loans and your worker acknowledged the debt then they have to pay what they owe, now this is a difficult situation for you, but it would be better if you kept yourself away from it as it has nothing to do with you.

We are responsible for our own actions and the potential consequences. You are right, there are individuals who take advantage of people for financial gain, this is the reality in many areas of life, including gambling, but in the end, no one forces people to gamble with money they don't have! So the biggest blame is on the gambler himself, he got himself into trouble. Did he not know better, was he not aware of what he is doing? Whatever it was, the problem was caused by him.

It's why education is very important. We can't stop talking about "don't gamble with money you can't afford to lose", and "don't borrow money for gambling"... the consequences can be catastrophic!

When the gambler gambled and bet, he must have done so in his personal wisdom. so he has to take full responsibility for it and he can't blame anyone and can't blame the gambling agent either.  Because if he wins the gamble then the gambling agent is bound to pay him his money with the profit but when he loses he must accept the loss. here the gambler got greedy and bet there, he cannot blame anyone and he has to take responsibility for his financial loss.

That what a denial person is, not only happen in gambling, but this kind person can be find everywhere. This kind person can't accept any lose or wrong, they will blame the other people and try to create fake story to make people think they're right.

This kind person is dangerous in relationship, but in gambling, the casino can just ignore it or ask security to kick him.

We, as a gambler, need to bet what we can afford to lose and accept the losses since gambling isn't to earn money only.

Assigning the gambler sole responsibility for his plight betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition. As is evident in the case of gambling addiction, human beings are not always capable of reasonable thought. Although individuals must take responsibility for our own acts, must not the developers and hosts of sites where such behavior is encouraged also bear some of the blame? Not to mention that the entire gambling industry is based on keeping customers coming back for more! As a result, this is like laying the blame on a mouse for falling into a well-laid trap.

The effort to put an emphasis on learning is commendable. While it is crucial to inform the public about the hazards of gambling, efforts should also be made to reform the business and implement public regulations that lessen the negative effects of the activity. To be optimistic in this situation may seem counterintuitive, but I truly believe that we can make a difference if we all work together.

Same thing happened in the Area I leave, a young lad went to gambling shop to bet a same visuals and exceeded his budget but instead of quiting decide to play more and the agents at the shop allowed him play cause he's a regular customer and they thought he'll be able to comply like he normally does just for the agents to figure out In an hour time that's he's stolen another customers cell phone and when questioned why he stole the phone his excise was that he did that to settle his debt In the shop.
 My annoyance is with this agents for allowing customer to play free games without any collateral most times this customers might be friends of the agents, so they forget that theirs no friends when it comes to business hence you'll lose your profits due to customers patronising you on credit. And as a gambler it's wise to make a budget before gambling and do not exceed the limit of that budget. Both the agent and customer are wrong but I'll blame the agent more for joking with his/her business.

And that basically makes the betting agent responsible for what has happened, no matter how much they trust a person or how loyal one is to their betting shop, they should never allow them to gamble with credits without taking anything as collateral from them because they can't just run behind them all the time and won't even be able to find them if they move somewhere else without paying the debt as a lot of addicted gamblers can do that.

I would definitely say that the betting agent was lucky that he found the gambler around, otherwise, he would have lost the money if the gambler would never be around anymore as he was free to go anywhere he wanted to, and the betting agent could do nothing at all after that.

Well, that's what happened. It's so easy to blame others even when it's something we did wrong. Just because we don't want to admit it was our fault, we blame other people. And if it is gambling, we better accept what we do because the decision comes from us, so we can't blame other people. But this may have something to do with the level of maturity of a person where. If he has a good level of maturity, he can realize that it was his fault and might find a way out.

Seriously events like this happen frequently, which am sure the only people that can stop that are the gambling agents, when a gambler visit them and they discover that the gambler have used up their money, they shouldn't allow them to gamble on debt even if they trust the gambler. If you want to gamble, then come with your money and immediately you finish your money, then no debt should be allowed.

Gambling have made lots of people to do illegal things, which people in the society are thinking gambling is a bad thing, because of the way some addicted gambles do. Lots of gamblers think do crazy things just to get money to gamble which is very wrong, its not suppose to be like that.  

Hmm ... maybe I misunderstood something, but a 4-day debt (in terms of earnings) is a trifle. Even if the guy has other obligations and debts, it seems to me quite realistic to strain a little and pay off such a debt in a maximum of a week.
As for the agent, he takes a big risk, but not in terms of giving a big loan (this loan is small, as I said in my opinion), but because does he have a license to issue loans? Maybe that player will complain to the police/court and that debt will be recognized as generally illegal = non-existent, and the agent will pay a fine that is much more than that amount.

The agreement was based on trust and whateve happens after is no one business. I know if he had won the bets, the man would have collected his money with some bonus on it. Life can be very confusing especially when we are expecting so much from gambling. Gambling is like the game of thrones and if you have too much expectations, you might end up losing everything and not having anything thing to write home about. The wise ones do not take gambling too serious that is why they bet like a pro with so much expectations from the bet they bet on.

That is not nice situation for both the casino agent and gambler, especially if the gambler has a low income periodically. The first person I wanna blame is the casino agent even if there were not trust issues he should know letting the gambler bet over his bankroll by lending him money can lead to bad results since he knows how bad it may end. The gambler also should take into consideration current debt issues and he should pay him back by selling his own stuff unless there are alternative ways to pay back the agent.

Looking up on the bigger picture then both parties would really be that involved and would be blamed out because they do make out such decision and agreement on between on which it would really be that understandable that they had agreed on some terms on which it would really be just that normal on having such approach when it comes to potential events or situations on which they would really be
that held responsible as for that gambler then he knows on whats the amount that he needs on paying and that agent knows about that certain players capacity on repaying up those credits.
If the havent been able to assess out it well then he wont really be just giving out that small amount of credits but rather it would be big. Good thing that the agent did really make out some
giving those credits on something which the gambler could really easily settle in because it would really be just on few days work patch up which it wont really be
that a huge problem in between parties.

The betting agent didn't act professionally in this matter. How can he allow a gambler gamble on credit. Like who does that! Unfortunately if the gambler refuse to repay the debt then the agent would have to bear the cost for his unprofessional indulgence to allow a gambler repeatedly gamble to such amount.  This is what addiction can cause, unsatisfactory and uncontrollable gambling habit, not knowing when to stop even when there's no money to continue gambling.

This is what happens when "GREED" is a dominant factor. This also happens when we relegate "EXPERTISE" and rely on emotions while gambling or making sports betting. In this case both the gambler and the betting agent are at fault.

1. The betting agent forgot that in business; never mix emotions with business (just like in crypto currency too)
2. The gambler forgot that with greed, you will lose all and earn nothing.

Finally, i think that the betting agent and gambler are probably individuals who have close ties; they will resolve their fights when the gambler wins a new bet and is able to afford a refund; and then move on with their lives until another crisis surfaces out of greed (Will happen definitely).

Greed have been the major factor that leads gamblers into this kind of situation and in this case,  both the gambler and the agent are greedy in their different ways,  because both of them are culprits in all this and for them to reach such an agreement and settle to bet in credits,  it means that this is not first time this is happening and if truly so it then means that this will not also be the last time either because this is a Normal way of operating the business because their want to make a real sale by all means.

I think the same, I have always disagreed with the idea of casinos being allowed to extend credit to their clients, if we were talking about a real estate agency or a car shop then it would make sense those businesses could do so as what they are selling is too expensive for the majority of the people out there, however a casino only sells entertainment and as such they should not be allowed to use such tactics which take advantage of those which do not understand their games.

Some gambling agents cannot control their emotions in order to increase the revenue from the gambling platform competitively.  A picture is very common where a gambler being loaned several times more money than he has for gambling. It fully reveals that they are interested in increasing their income from emotional gamblers. But this is definitely a trap for those agents who are guilty of their own mistakes. As we see in the behavior of individual gamblers. When a gambler loses control, his losses increase. At one point he lost all his bankroll. Both gambling agents and gamblers should conduct their activities within limitation.

From what you've said, it's actually not easy for a casino to extend credit to its customers, especially for online casinos, it's definitely impossible.
In contrast to land-based casinos, maybe casinos can provide credit for customers so they can continue to gamble when they have no money at all.
But indeed this idea is not feasible to implement because it can lead to dependence for those who want to continue gambling sessions with this credit capital and in the long term it will only lead gamblers into debt problems.

Of course the betting is agent is to be blamed for such thing. I mean, why would the "agent" let him bet 8,000 coins if he has only 1,000 coins with him? Casinos don't work like this. They would never allow you to wager more than you can afford to lose. If there is one such casino, that casino won't be lasting long. Imagine hundred of people wagering money they don't have and then not paying. And then there are people that might win a lot with those money, and yet the casino still won't make any money...
The agent is to be blamed here for making a "bad" business model.

In gambling world there is the term mostly use as the sacred one and that is "No Bet No Win" meaning that this was being violated by the gambler and the agent as well because the player must not put a bet above his balance and the agent never let the bet without the complete amount in players balance.
this is both of them as mistake and this is just a turn around case.
but still there must be a settlement agreement if they don't want to have a conflict and issue forever.at least they must meet in middle.

it's also not as easy as you might imagine even though it can happen in offline casinos but only certain people can get betting credit as we discuss here. like people who have been customers at offline casinos for years, sometimes they won't be given such facilities because almost all casinos will always think about profits, but not all of them dare to take the risk of giving credit bets to their customers because it will be very risky if one day this happens. such a problem and the gambler either runs away or commits suicide. so this risk is very bad because if it is investigated the casino will also be in trouble by law.

But the casino certainly won't allow someone who doesn't have enough money to gamble because the casino knows that that person has a big chance of losing compared to winning. So the casino might be able to ask for evidence from the gambler stating that the gambler really has the money, and then the casino will allow him to play gambling. And if you don't have one, the casino won't allow you to gamble, let alone place big bets. But if the casino has a feature of providing loans to gamblers, the casino must also make sure that the guarantee from the gambler is commensurate with the money to be borrowed. And if the gambler cannot repay the loan, the casino can take over the collateral.

After the security kick the people who don't have the money to gamble, those people can just ask a loan from bank, friend or their relatives in order to gambler. This make the security wouldn't know how they can get the money and they will let them to gamble.

There's no casino will allow their gambler to gamble with casino's money because it will cause a problem where the gambler not want to pay when they're losses. A casino have many risks, they wouldn't want to increase their risk.

Very much agree with this.


It's just a matter of discerning. If a person do not have enough funds in the very beginning and there's no gamble now, pay later feature in the casino, then the person shouldn't be allowed to gamble in the first place because what will he used to stake and make a bet right. There will be none that he can use to play for the games in that casino. Hence, he must be given a heads up that money's a requirement in order to make a bet or play if ever he is not aware of it. The casino shouldn't also tolerate this since gamblers must practice discipline and in order to maintain the peace inside the casino, they have to prevent trouble from happening, which in this case might come out if the person insist to play without money.

But if there's a loan feature, then it must be ensured that the player has the capacity to pay the loans he will take regardless the outcome of his bets and plays. The amount of money must be in proportion to the capacity of paying. Proper documents for verification should be asked and it must be screened thoroughly to be guaranteed theres no fake document and that they will be paid or they can have the collateral if things don't really go well.

This is reality as we all know that everyone of us here in the forum once we talk about gambling then we will already know that there are many gamblers who see addicted to much which means even though they don't have enough money to gamble with then they will go to the casino and ask for playing.  Or else they will make a way how to have Money on hand and some of them are borrowing from their friends or from their company.

They actually do have a strong rule on the workers not to allow bettors to bet on credit but what happens sometimes is that because a particular bettor is a friend or became close to the game house, one of the workers may fall soft for the bettor especially opposite sex. You know how the opposite attracts, and after sometime, the credit betting can start happening with repayment from time to time but it never last longer before such arrangement is unearthed and when this is noticed the worker will face losing the job or pay the debt .

I guess that the agent has been doing this stuff for a long time now and sounds like that he also managed to have his cut without any problems even though the bettors whom he lend the money lose the bet. But now, it is a very different case because the man cannot afford to give the money back as he might not have that much and just barely survived in every day life. Now, it has come to an end because the agent met the man that cannot afford anything and now he's having this kind of stuff.

The player begins to try himself in gambling, because he wants to make money on it, this is an understandable truth. But over time, he realizes that he will not be able to do this, for various reasons. It seems to me that every player who understands this should just stop, if this does not happen, then problems may most likely begin, but often it will be a game for little money. It is difficult to blame the bookmaker, for him this is a business on which he earns, it seems to me that here the responsibility lies entirely with the player.

Whatever the reason, it is the player's fault, the things that a person has to require when entering a casino is that they be of legal Age , if they do not meet that requirement they will not enter, and precisely the requirement is because they are considered to be A person is 18 years old , and is mature enough to assume their actions , whether good or bad, things are like that, and if a person decided to give them the loan, or the city did not trust to give them the loan, it was because they saw that they had the capacity to Payment , if you lost or won that does not matter to the one who made the loan, the one who made the loan is only interested in your interest and that they Give you your money.

I support you that the person who took the loan is liable. Moreover, according to his age, he is mature if he is 18. Therefore, his default can be considered as a crime. But here I have a complaint that if a gambler has become addicted then any gambling agent should not lend him as much as he likes. Here a gambler may lose his common sense due to addiction but the gambling agent must keep an eye on him. Moreover, they should not give additional loans. But if it is a case that the gambler has already taken a big loan previous time and paid that then the gambling agent cannot be blamed. According to the law, the borrower is the main culprit. But gambling agents should also be careful. If they cannot withdraw the loan money, their business will also suffer.

It's okay if the person borrows money from the bank or a friend because it has nothing to do with the casino so if the person loses, they have to leave the casino immediately. Casinos also do not need to lend money to that person to avoid other cases that could arise. And that person who has to deal with the bank or his friend, because he borrowed the money is left.

Casinos don't want to take the risk if gamblers can't repay their loan money so they better not allow people who don't have enough money to gamble. This is also to maintain the reputation of the casino.

Indeed, casinos should not lend money to gamblers because surely many cannot return the money. It's better for the casino to act decisively to avoid trouble that may have no end so that the casino can run its business without dealing with people like that.

If the casino provides a loan feature, it is not easy to verify because the casino must check it first before giving the money. And it will take time, while gamblers really want to play gambling so they definitely won't be patient to ask for the money.

They will only experience difficulties if they keep forcing themselves to be able to have money to use for gambling. They may know it will be bad for them if they keep gambling, but that still doesn't stop them from borrowing money from people around them and maybe even borrowing from moneylenders. Only wise gamblers will not force themselves to continue gambling when they have no money and will choose to take a break first.

And when it comes to friends, the worker should be able to stand firm and say that the company can't lend the gambler any money. Maybe the worker could lend him the money if they knew the gambler but still, it was risky for the worker. Many possibilities occur where gamblers can have money to gamble and find many ways to have money. So casinos only need to prohibit gamblers who don't have money to gamble at their place and advise them to look for money elsewhere and only after they have money can they return to the casino to gamble.

Judging by the fact that that agent himself came to the debtor to work, this is not the policy of the casino, but his personal mistake. However, from the original message, you might think that this agent is the owner of the casino, so it's hard for me to judge. In any case, it appears that the player has legal grounds for not repaying this debt.

As long as there's agreement in between parties (which it is the standard) then that certain gambler would really be having that kind of possibility on facing up some possible charges but of course it would really be that effective if a such information is been known which its impossible that the house itself who grant such credit would able to do so. You are the ones who do take up some loan or credit then as a gambler then you are really that liable on such thing or you would really be needing to pay it up on a certain time. Good thing that the house or company was able to assess
about on giving out such limit on something that a certain gambler would really be able to pay.If not then they would really be definitely be having that kind of problem
on which they would really be considered as losses if ever a certain gambler couldnt be able to pay.

It seems that both of them have lost in this part and it didn't benefitted anybody because the agent already made a mistake by letting the man have 8,000 coins when in-fact he already have 1,000 at that moment but since the agent have known the man and the OP also stated that he's been a regular gambler to their shop, the agent allowed it because by then, they know where it work or what does it do. Furthermore, the debt will not last more than 1 week because it has been said that the man has a daily pay of 2,000.

Though I agree with what you say that a person is responsible for what he does, you are totally not getting the point here. The person among gambler and the betting agent who was in trouble in this case was the betting agent because the gambler went to his shop for gambling, and lost everything he had, the betting agent then offered him to gamble with credit and pay back later, and the gambler accepted the offer and lost the credits too but then disappeared.

After some days, the betting agent found the gambler working somewhere and started arguing about the money that he has to pay back for gambling with credits, the gambler said he doesn't have money to pay back, so things sorted out when the person the gambler was working for said he will pay you back with whatever he earns from the work.

In all this, I only find the betting agent to be the one whose mistake this all was, he shouldn't have offered the gambler credits when he saw he lost everything he had already.

I am a bit surprised that the gambler got a loan for 8x for the 1,000 he came with. In case the betting agent know the gambler well than the loan shouldn't be an issue, but also the gambler shouldn't have run away after losing all his money. And if they don't know each other than he should never give a loan to a stranger. The situation could have easily been avoided and given that it's only small amounts I think that it's going to be resolved. Why are you saying low-income earnings? It only takes the gambler 4 days of work to pay off his debt, that is not a lot. In my country people have to work month and years to pay of loans. I find it a bit strange that the gambler would run away for such a small amount. Would you really give up your job forever or work 4 days to pay your debt? In less than a week he would be debt free and now he lost his job. Also, the world is a small place and people meet each other at the most random locations again. Let's say the gambler needs a few weeks to find a job and then randomly the betting agent finds him again. In the end he still has to pay back his loan and lost a few weeks of salary for running away. It might take some time but the betting agent will get his money back in the end.

The betting agent tries to take advantage of his customer because the more he spends, the more profit he will get from the customer, the betting agent has crossed the limits of what he should have done and now he accepts his greedy attitude. Because as a betting agent, he understand the risks of gambling and coupled with the risk of providing loans, which also have a risk where the debtor cannot repay the loan, and it could be that the betting agent is used to doing this, only this time he is dealing with a customer who turns out to have no financial ability and in the end he will lose his money. Important lesson not to take advantage of people for self-interest because the results can actually be detrimental to oneself

While this is common I still think this is wrong, I mean look at online casinos, they do not give loans to their customers and yet they are a thriving industry and it would not surprise me if they were generating now more profits than land based casinos, so trying to take advantage of gamblers in this way by giving them loans may work for a time and increase the profits of that casino, but I am sure there are many gamblers out there that if they found out this information they will decide to stop gambling at that casino out of fear this could happen to them.

online casinos will never provide loan facilities to their customers because that will be very risky because so many customers come from countries that prohibit gambling, so even if they provide credit card guarantees or KYC it is very risky for online casinos.
it's different from land-based casinos, in that the country or city certainly allows the gambling business, so it's only natural that land-based casinos provide loans to their customers. and I'm not sure if gamblers would avoid the casino if offered a betting loan because we know that not all gamblers are sane minds but many gamblers will accept such an offer.

In the case described in OP, the gambling agent was still able to find the gambler despite the gambler trying to evade the debt. If this were to be online casino, how and where will they find a gambler who they granted loan to. The money is lost for ever.

In general, I don't think offline casinos giving their customers loan to gamble is ethical. They are just increasing the gamblers debt and risk of being addicted. That act should be prohibited.

The betting agent may offer the gambler credit, but the betting agent must be able to find out what the gambler has so that if the gambler loses the bet, the gambler can return the money he borrowed. In traditional casinos, betting agents sometimes ask for guarantees and I have even heard of gamblers who guarantee things in their house to get money to gamble. The betting agent will be happy to hear this because the goods offered by gamblers are often in the form of goods that other people rarely own so the betting agent immediately gives the money. This may be the fault of the betting agent so he can't get the money anymore and can only wait for the gambler to have the money to be able to pay it again.

Yes, I also wrote about the fact that the debt is insignificant relative to the income of this gambler. But this is subject to the fact that he decides to return this debt. In fact, I highly doubt that agent has any legal means to get him to do this. Here everything goes into the topic of personal human relations, since from a legal point of view, this debt seems to me to be unfounded.

I believe that's still gamblers fault, why gamble with the money you do not have? I mean you are not a little child to be pressured into gambling with no money, if you do not have it then do not gamble with it, that's such a simple thing and trying to be cheeky about gambling with what you do not have in case you could win is not a solution. Do not blame the agent for trying to collect what the gambler owes, it's his fault and he should be paying it and if he doesn't have the money for it then he should sell some of his stuff to pay so he would learn a big lesson.

There is absolutely no excuse for gambling like that, you can't just put the blame on anyone else than the gambler for making such a huge mistake and it was a mistake from the start.

There is no room for debt in online business and that is the advantage because there is no personal relationship interphase. The casino don't give out credit only bonus for playing with them. There is no credit facility allowed but because there is physical relation in offline casino, things like that are possible.


Does this not buttress the point that the house win more than the bettor? The agents that is loaning out the money knows the gambler was going to lose again and again which was the reason to give out the money. Otherwise how would you loan money to someone who wants to "fight " against you and to win against you ? Or if you are not sure the money you loan won't come back to you as profit .

Bitgolden explained the point... Our actions and words have consequences! We all learn that sooner or later, in the easy or the hard way.

Hardcore addicts start by lying to their closest ones, then they start lying to everyone. That can work for some time, but it can't work all the time. With some people, you simply don't fuck around! And when someone allows himself to get in this kind of situation and decides to "sell his soul to the devil", even if it was only verbally, there is no going back after that. Just another man falling into the Devil's trap... I am not a believer, this is just a good metaphor in my opinion.

Not wrong but it's risky on the side of the casino owner. What if the gambler won't pay and won't come back again on the casino? Gambling plus loaning is something that won't fit. It's a bad idea. For loans, there is already a separate company for that. They have special conditions to make sure that they won't lose big in the long run.

The cheap internet, gadgets which has the ability to connect to the internet and covid has made people more exposed online or to online casinos. No wonder why they are growing and seems to surpass the land-based casinos. When a gambler found out that a casino offer loans, the more they will play on there. It's the casino is the one who will experience a fear. 

This only happens in the offline and physical casinos where the agents can trap the gamblers and force them to gamble even if they do not have the money. In online gambling, we usually do not face such a situation. An online gambling site won't give loans to their gamblers. Yeah, they sometimes may give us extra money in terms of deposit bonuses, etc but we can't withdraw that amount because of the high wagering requirement associated with those promotions. (95% of the people will bust their balances in order to complete the wagering requirements).

It's not good business for casinos if they provide loans to gamblers who often lose or don't have the money to gamble. And if those gamblers didn't have any collateral the casinos could hold, the casinos wouldn't be able to get their money back because those people would run away after gambling and not come back for a while. The casino business cannot grow and can suffer losses in the long term. And we can say that this was due to the betting agent's mistake because the betting agent dared to provide loans to gamblers without checking the background of the gamblers and without collateral.

Of course, this is the responsibility of the player, if the player allowed a situation where he lost everything and he needs a loan to continue playing, then you just need to think and soberly assess the situation. If he has lost everything up to this point, then most likely he will also lose the loan money, and the responsibility will be only on him. It seems to me that the casino simply will not issue a loan to the player, first they need to make sure of his solvency.

Why is it the responsibility of the agent to manage a gambler's finances? If a bet is made on credit, who's to say that gambler doesn't have future capabilities of paying back the bet if he loses even if he doesn't have the funds to cover the wager immediately? Gamblers are responsible for their own wagers, period.

I'm rather shocked at how many people think it's the agent's fault. You could argue it's immoral/unethical for agent/casinos to offer credit lines, fine. That doesn't make them at fault for issuing credit to a gambler who accepted credits on their own accord.

While the player is the sole responsible of this as they are the only ones which can take financial decisions on their name, I also argue casinos should have no business issuing loans to their clients, now this would be a different story if the gambler in their irresponsibility used their credit card to go an ATM and withdrew some cash from their account, as in that case neither the bank or the casino know the purpose of the withdrawal or the source of those funds respectively.

It has a good benefits as well, when a person aren't able to pay casino will get their collateral. Traditional casinos has this kind of thing, it is better of the collateral of that person is a house, land or anything that will not depreciate the value over time or maybe luxury items such as high brand models of bags and cars. But in an online one , I never heard any online casino that offers this kind of thing , it is because it is only and assurance is not reliable.

This one is simple to answer; the gambling agent could be in the wrong as the service provided isn't the type that is run on credit!

But in certain instances players could be allowed to play on credit because of their gaming history and they know the players usual threshold and potential before they call it a day!

If this isn't the case, the only reason player was allowed to play the extra rounds is because the agent might have connived with the player in return to split the profits but unfortunately game didn't go as planned and now the agents job is on the line.

Otherwise in all scenarios, agent is still the culprit here!!

Most and many of them in such cases are all olan work, because in the cost of my further investigation on the matter, i fund out that, this is not the first time this incident and the agent have been fun of doing this for his loyal players, but you know gamblers cant be trusted and at that he ended up disappointing the casino agent this time.

I wont suspect that ghe vambler vs the agent have an agreement to split the profits if there is a winning,  but then also if he did then that will be against the entics of his business since that will open door for more of such demands and this will ultimately collapse tge business on the long run.

Even though the online casino has the KYC of the users, yet it is very easy for scammers to create an account, do the KYC, and apply for a loan.
Some can say that casinos can safeguard the return of the loans by not allowing the withdrawal until the loan is cleared. How about anyone getting the loan, losing all in the gambling, and quitting the site forever without returning the loan?


In physical casinos, it is easier to recover the loans, but it is worth it for the gambling casino to give the loan service and face all these hassles from the gamblers not returning or delaying the return of loans, as they will usually lose all the loan money in the gambling.

It is a debatable situation, why the casino agent has such an opportunity to give loans to gamblers on a physical gambling place.
If he loans, it means management and awareness of gambling problems are not the case there.
Quitting has never been easy, so it is understandable why the "victim" will continue to play even if someone pays his loan back, IMHO.

Agreed, quitting is not an easy thing. Whether it is gambling or something else. The owner shouldn't have given money, just because he gave money the victim continued spending. If not, he could've left with what he had lost from his pocket. The trouble maker is the casino owner who knows well about the reality of gambling that it is not easy to recover the losses.

Well, where I have entered there is no option of casinos that can give loans to their clients, even though they are the most recognized clients, besides, that thing about loans seems to me to be something bad for clients, very good business for casinos, but bad for people, so in that sense, i would say that an online casino should not make or risk with loans, the loan part for a casino player is also not good, because his life starts to be full of additional Problems if he gets the loan and then loses everything Sometimes it's better to say no before the world collapses on you.

In these cases, I don't know if any type of VIP client can access a benefit like this, I know that some casinos give credit to players, but of course they are prominent players who always go to the casinos to leave a good slice of their money, and this is They have very well studied, at least the traditional casinos that I know do, where I live there is only 1 traditional casino, but it is something that many people frequent, especially on weekends, I hope that another casino opens that is like a Bingo, but it has everything from slot machines to the most luxurious and beautiful roulette wheels, everything for entertainment, this is how I have seen some people get into debt, when a casino gives credit to a customer, it is like giving money, only in a different way. directly, but on occasions I have seen that the ones who give credit the most are older people, older adults who sit almost all day and night giving it, I really admire them a lot.

Even if quitting is difficult, they should still try. It would be better for them than taking a big risk that they couldn't take. Both of them have made a mistake and had a problem, which should be resolved amicably. Between the person who borrowed and the person who lent the money, they can discuss how the borrower can return the money. And the lender should be able to provide enough time for the borrower to return the money. The person who borrowed it could return the money by returning it little by little.

The person after start to gamble,it’s very hard to quit from gambling.They people says when the person start gambling,they get addicted with the first game.Their was the strategy 90 percentage of the gamblers get addicted to gambling and only ten percentage of people had the ability to get away from the gambling addiction.Actually thirty percentage of the gamblers are girl in this 21st century,they use the fake Kyc to do gambling.

It doesn’t mean,gambling only belong to the man.Woman also had the right to get participation.My friend and his girlfriend use to gamble for the full time.They enjoy every weekend with the profits from the gambling.My friend had build some strategy for the dice aand with his luck the strategy also working.

Not everyone who gambled with the loan is losing, but many are also benefiting a lot.  For those who are profiting, they don't have to use any of their own money, but only keep the profit in their own pocket by gambling.  But on the other hand those who gamble with loans and lose are in deep danger. Gambling is very addictive and because of it is a lot of fun everyone gets addicted to it very quickly. Because of this, one thing everyone should keep in mind is whether he can control himself from gambling

When we enter a casino, whether it is a traditional casino, we are going to listen to many voices, advice and some express their thoughts letting us know what they say, but we as players are the owners of our own money, we are the ones who take risks, we are the that we put our face on certain occasions, and we have at our disposal everything that we must do, we have to listen to whoever, we have to pay attention to the things that others say and it is our responsibility. things that we should always do, when it comes to money and risk it, I think we should always be the protagonists.

In these casinos there will always be agents, those who are in charge of distributing chips or anything else, this type of person can give us advice or something, it is up to us if we follow them or not, when they talk about casino agents we can imagine many things, there are many, what sion in charge of everything in the casino, we as players must have decision-making power, we cannot do other things but stick to our own decisions, it is not the fault of others if we want to follow their advice or something, because the money is ours, it doesn't belong to anyone else, if we win it, it's us who win, not the others, if we lose, it's us, not the others.

Not lots but only a few on which we know that there are ones who do able to make out and able to pay on what they owe because they had just been luckily be able to make wins out of those loaned money or been borrowing out but this should not really be enough on making yourself that got convinced for you to make such similar step just because you've seen someone who had been doing it.
We know that gambling out loaned or borrowed money which isnt yours is really that risky because on the time that you would lost it all then you would really be needing to repay which is a normal thing. What if you would be having that financial problem on which you cant be able to repay those? For sure it would really be an another huge problem that you would take.

Basing on the situation above stated then its an agreement in between the gambler and the agent and good thing that agent did make out some credits which is really that enough
for a certain gambler would be able to pay out knowing that he had some work and the amount isnt really that huge on which means that in no time or in just few days or weeks
he would be able to settle out such amount which i could say that it isnt really just that much big problem.

however, the problem stated on the OP's case is that the gambler played using credits because the betting agent allowed him to. maybe, he was thinking that the player will win at one point so he can recover what is owed. but unfortunately, he lost it all and ended up owing about ₦‎8,000 as mentioned.
on this case, the agent has also the responsibility on this situation as he allowed him to play even if he has no more money of his own. but the gambler of course has the responsibility to pay for his debts. lesson learned for both sides, agent should not let the gamblers play on credits if he doesn't want to be accountable about the outcome. whereas, the gambler should just stick

Yes, not all of them have indeed lost, but they have lost with the large number of people who borrowed money to gamble. This makes us recommend not using borrowed money to gamble. We will find it difficult to pay off loan money because we don't have money. But if they win at gambling by borrowing the money, they can repay the loan money. That's why we really have to be able to control ourselves when playing gambling so that we don't experience big losses. When we borrow money from a betting agent, we will be chased by people from the betting agency until we return all the loan money.

They are lucky but they should pay their loans immediately and then try to fix their selves this time, so that they won't lose all the money that they currently have and they won't end up taking another loan because they may not get lucky next time. The good thing about winning is like you said it allows us to play for free but gambling can literally be played for free though the level of happiness that we might get are reduced by some percent.

There might be other things which have a similar effect with gambling. If we know that we have a hard time controlling our selves on them then much better to not engage in gambling at all. As they say, prevention is better than cure.

There is a very fine line to walk, but gambling institutions should not be in the business of giving out lines of credit. They should only allow you to play with funds from elsewhere, otherwise it creates a huge conflict of interest and it can drive customers into terrible debt more easily. In reality, the casino in your scenario did not lose anything except the virtual credit that they had extended to the gambler, who had then lost it and was expected to replace it by depositing real cash. It is actually rather shameful and would be unlikely to get any support in the courts of a country where gambling was regulated at the basic level. For example in places like Europe they do not allow you to fund gambling deposits via credit card which is a comparable situation.

This is not for gambling. For gambling, usually what you are seeing is the winning. Taking of risk is what gambling is, if you are not a risk taker then maybe gambling is not for you and maybe that is the sense that prevention can be apt but as a gambling then you are only heading for the winning. Most gamblers don't see limitation to what they want to bet until they are finished with it and the result is out to their favour or not. There are no prevention if you are a gambler, it is only those who don't gamble will run away after losing.

  They're both a fault but I'll blame the betting agent mostly for going against his employers policy and doing something that would make him lose his job, there's a saying that there's no friend in business, talk more of joking with a business that's not yours,  it's very wrong or would I say that's so foolish to him and he's lucky his employer was not aware of such a careless act, what I expected from the betting agent is for him to request for a collateral like depositing his valuable item before betting for free, but then he didn't do that neither did he ask for the address or details of the gambler nor ask for his field of occupation to know if he'll be capable of paying his debt, it's very wrong and his actions would had cost him his job.
 The best thing I think they should do is to invlove higher authorities that's would make him sign an agreement concerning when he'll be able to clear his debt or bargain with the site manager to make sure he not the 2k daily pay he receives until the debt is cleared

What @Gozie51 said is true because when someone gambles, he can afford to risk losing, and actually, he already knows that his chances of winning might not be too great. But because he took that risk, he still gambled, and gamblers just want to bet so they don't see the rest. So they think what will happen next is something they can think about later after gambling. And if they don't dare to take the risk of losing, they should stop gambling and relax at home, enjoying the atmosphere. Thus, they don't have to think about the risks of gambling or other things.

Yes because for gamblers, it is take the risk and have the chance to some profit and if you are not taking the risk then you are not preventing anything. You are only preventing something by avoiding it and that is the reason I have said it is not for a gambler to prevent it, be it the risk or something else. If you are a gambler and you have come to gamble, all you have to do is to gamble as you can bear and in order words you are gambling anyway and you are not preventing it only to reduce your risk.

If it is wrong for the owner to give the loan then the borrower is more guilty. Since the owner operates a casino or gambling business, he can certainly provide loans to grow his business. On the other hand, the person taking the loan should also be aware of whether he can repay the loan amount or not. When providing loans, sometimes such situations have to be accepted. It would have been better if the financial condition of the borrower could have been well known before giving the loan, then it would have been possible to prevent such a situation.

Both of them have fair shares of wrong in this scenario. The owner shouldn't have provided a loan in the first place if there's really no existing feature of such in his casino. Additionally, someone shouldn't be granted with one without knowing the financial capacity to pay of the borrower. In this case, he was not on his guard and do not expect bad things from happening. You can say that he trusted the gambler to pay, however, it became a trouble to him.

Meanwhile, the gambler has his wrongs too. He shouldn't have borrowed if he knew he can't pay. It is the debtor's responsibility to pay his dues, and he must know that already to avoid inconveniencing others and himself as well because of the additional interest generated from the debt as time passes by. But he insisted to take a loan and didn't bothered to pay at all. It's such a shame that there are people who are like this.

Hopefully, there will be no cases such as this in the future and the players and casino owners will learn from here already. Because money matters should be taken seriously and responsibly.

If you don't reduce the risk, you will only see the risk of losing money getting bigger, and if that happens, you should immediately stop gambling and rest. It's not good to continue gambling because we can lose even more, especially if we deposit more money into the gambling account. It will only make us want to recover our losses even though we know that it will not guarantee that we can recover losses but provide other losses. Here it is better for us to prevent that loss than get other losses so we will not lose much money.

Risk is the common one in the gambling,people are not ready to handle the risk of losing money.But it's essential one to hold the money and use in the gambling after learning of gambling,if you just do gambling without the knowledge it leads to complete loss.So find the legit gambling site before using the gambling was the important one.


Giving loan is not a wrong one by the gambling owner,because they had a money to rotation from his business.Most of the business need of huge money for the rotation,So the gambling owner lend the money for the business is not the problem.Only thing is he should not scam their participants winnings.He should not get scammed by lending and scam the people winning money.This is most important one to keep in mind before doing the lending.

I agree but the gambler is also not thinking wisely by doing that, hence they are mistaken as well. Why would someone take loans and use them for gambling in the first place? That shouldn't be how it works. Nevertheless, the betting agent should not provide money to the gambler as it can lead to a really bad consequences as it has happened before. The gambler might find themselves in an extremely difficult situation where they can't even recover the money.

This is far from a fact. In most countries, gambling and lending are completely different areas of activity that are regulated in different ways and you must obtain different licenses to carry out these activities. That is why the chances of the casino through the court to demand money from this gambler are very low - they did not have the right to issue him a loan (this is my proposal, but I think it will be true for 95% of countries).

On the time that you do able to reach out this point on which you are already that considering on taking up some loan just for the sake on playing even more or tending to chase up those losses on which its never been ideal on doing so.This is why it would really be just that right that you should really be that mindful about those probabilities that you might mess up your financial status or situation if you cant be able to control or moderate yourself on playing further. Gambling isnt really bad but everything should really be in moderation because on the time that you wont really be making yourself able to control about your gambling urges
then it would really be resulting into those negative things that could happen.

On the situation stated up in between an agent and a gambler, then they are both that made out agreements on which its neither they would really be making out such big loan amount or would really be
just sufficient on the amount that he do able to make on everyday on which it is really just that right that the agent gave out that kind of offering or let him borrow on an amount
on which he's capable on paying it off basing on his daily salary or pay then it would really be just not a problem.

Well yes, both are guilty, but they offer me a loan and it is in my knowledge whether or not I can accept it due to my ability to pay, if I see that I can't afford to pay, I'm not going to accept a loan like that, because how would pay? It would be something very painful, although there are people who do not care and accept things like this, but that is irresponsibility, if a casino is going to make a loan it must have many conditions to prevent the casino from losing money or credit there, for that reason when we We start to see what is better if going to a casino with your own or borrowed money, it is better with your own money, I would never use borrowed money to gamble in a casino.

When they give credit to people in a casino, it is because that casino knows who that person is, and knows very well that that person can respond to the credit or loan that was given to him, when he was in Lau a few years ago and entered to play in a casino, I remember that there were many older adults playing slot machines, they couldn't get away from there and a lady ran out of money, so she called an agent and that agent contacted the casino owner directly and they gave her a large amount of money in credit for the lady to continue playing, for me to see that amount of money was something impressive, I had not seen so much money there, I remember that I would go to the casino to my house, then I would return to the casino the next day and return to see that lady there in the same slot machine, I don't know, I always wondered if that lady had spent the whole night there or had left or just opened the casino and she's the first one that passed by, I saw those things, That is why I say that sometimes the agents are not to blame, it is the fault of the casino owner who issues the order that they can give credit to the person.

Both had their own fault in the game,because the loan guy should get to know the purpose of loan.So that the loan getting person will pay their loan without any delay.The most avoided thing of the gambler is he/she should not loan from the agent to get the game.Most of the people use the loan option for the gambling after the complete loss to the game.So mostly I advice my friends,gambling is good but the loan with the gambling is the unnecessary one for the good gamblers.Because such game will not allow them to owe some one for the money.

In this world we can't count others are going to be kind to us, so we have to be very careful with our personal decisions. Something that may look a gift at the first impression might be more of a curse than a blessing, after all... That was the case with the agent offering the loan to the gambler. The same happens quite often even outside the gambling environment, when people in general go to their local banks and the manager offer them abundant loans offers for different reasons, without caring if those people will have money to repay the loan back futurely.

Despite what you are going to do, it can be to gamble, to travel, to refurbish, to invest... Always be very careful if you are going to borrow money for those reasons. Make sure you don't have any other alternatives before doing so. Because once you take a loan, you will have to pay a very expensive interest rate later.

What we see when requesting a loan is to turn it into something productive , that is, a loan is Generally requested to set up businesses, to invest in a type of capitalization for a machinery company or something like that , to pay salaries , but in the case of a casino for a specific player we must do something, first, in a casino the money comes and goes, and it leaves more than what is going to come in, then for this reason we as Players must manage our abilities very well, if a loan is requested to play, at least I wouldn't or would, not to play, maybe for an investment , even if it's to buy Bitcoin, well I'm taking a Risk, because it is known that bitcoin apart from It can fall, it can rise, and it would become the investment of life , it is safer, but in casino games it would not.

Even so, when people do it , they must be aware that they must respond right there, whether it is to leave something as collateral, a car or something like that, so that they can provide trust to the casino and this is very delicate , because when we get Let's see , things can change a lot, a casino agent cannot make these decisions, if all the protocol must go through an Owner or Manager of the casino , because just buying in a bank when you are going to apply for a loan or credit, things are Usually very strict so that they can give it to them, in fact on occasions they ask for verifications of all kinds, and they ask for the financial status of the person , even though they know that person because of their seniority, those things are what I say are very be careful , because what will be given is money , and for them they need many Guarantees , things cannot be done like that or like that.

In a casino, unless the agent owns or has a stake in the casino, he is the one who can make the decisions, it cannot be done like this, it is obvious that the responsibility falls first on the person who spent and lost , but also on the person or the approving Agent.

In the economic crisis that we're experiencing right now, most people are willing to sacrifice relationships and their own reputation in the name of money. They are willing to fool and deceive others regardless of it's negative effect on a person's life and we have to be careful for that as we might fall into their trap. We all want to make money but if they are offering too good to be true bonuses and promotions, we need to think twice or better yet look for ways to research and seek legitimacy.
If we will grab every little thing that would seem legit, we could easily be deceived so we should never trust easily especially if it involves money. There will be no one to blame if we fall for their trap but it is us who are making personal decisions. It's better to be sure than to be fooled.

If one can manage responsible gambling there will be no complaint. As long as a gambler can manage gambling with his own money, he will not be hated by anyone. Whenever he goes into debt it will start affecting his personal life. There is no fault can be found on the part of the lender in what happened mentioned by the OP. Because if lender has paid the loan according to the rules, then the person who has taken the loan will be legally guilty if he does not repay the loan.

I was at the house of one of my relatives, what I could see there is that my relative played the lottery every day, but when he had no money and he already knew the lottery person very well, what he did was simply to take the tickets from lottery, and paid days later when he had money, the problem with all this is that he always lost and when it came to paying the money he took in the lottery he was very sad, after watching all that for a long time I started to think that my relative was addicted to gambling and with that I started to tell him every day to give up buying those tickets forever because they were useless

and it was just hurting him a lot, but I wouldn't listen until I had to travel back to my house and months later I found out that my relative got very sick and this illness he had was related to the fact that he kept playing and losing, he got with heart problems and when I went to see him he couldn't play anymore, he had to get sick to stop playing altogether, but there were times when he wanted to continue playing but he had no money and the person who gave him tickets no longer worked at that company, I don't know if he was fired from the company because he kept letting people take lottery tickets and only pay days later

but one thing was clear to me, that was that without that employee working at that company, my relative could no longer take the lottery tickets to pay later and with the disease that my relative developed, so my relative had no choice, he stopped playing. I'm not trying to blame the seller, but this is one scenario that shows that lottery ticket sellers could also play an indirect role of blame when it comes to getting someone addicted to gambling.

No matter how we scrutinize whom to blame, it is always the gambler, because you are right, it is his responsibility to make sure he will not get addicted to gambling, and if he lends money, he will have a hard time paying for it, mostly if he doesn't have a stable job. The people who lend to that gambler are just doing their job and asking him to repay his loan in a hard way, and the lender should also make sure that he can pay what he has got.

Without a doubt the original blame resides with the gambler as they are asking for a loan for something that is completely unnecessary, however it is also undeniable the agent is also to blame, they know very well for what reason those people want to use that money and they still decide to offer them the loan.

So it is obvious they were trying to force this person into a difficult position from the beginning and almost extort the amount they are owed out of him with all they got.

But don't lenders have a specific rule at the very least about who they want to lend to? I mean, it isn't exactly easy to loan to a person with literally nothing. Maybe if they had land in their name, even if they had nothing, they'd still be worth giving a loan to since they can sell that land or even just turn it over to pay the debts. It's a simple process really, and the question here is who is to blame for the loan.

Now I reckon the gambler who asked for the loan is just a mad man, asking for a loan even without substantial financial sources, but I'd reckon the case started in the first place because the loan was allowed, which was the fault of the lender instead. But well, since the case already happened, the only one we can blame here is the gambler themselves though.

In the midst of a recession right now, hard for people to find how to get money. Everything they can do to meet their needs. one of the ways is to force someone to ask loan. I've experience with it and often to see around me. Sometimes I got a short message offering loans from strangers where I don't know him. he's a little pushy, and lure with low interest, where in fact, the interest they are often is very big and impossible to pay off with a limit.

People must learn to accept gambling risks if they want to gamble. The risk of losing money is something they will encounter in gambling, so they need to prepare an amount of money that can run out at the gambling table, and they will not be too disappointed because they already know the risks. But if it is borrowing money from the casino, it is highly not recommended because there is no guarantee that we will win even if the money comes from the casino. We may experience a loss with the loan money, so it makes us unable to pay the loan money.

If we want to gamble, we have to set up a special budget for gambling that won't be mixed up with things like expenses, savings, or others. That will allow us to manage how much we can use for gambling and not interfere with needing money elsewhere. This requires financial control and management because in gambling, we will not always be able to get the win. And if we can't always get a win, that means the money we use can run out or we can stop gambling before the money runs out. And they also didn't need to think about recovering their losses because that was difficult.

Due to global economic meltdown, alot of personal economic problems have increased and this is as countries around the world struggle with high inflations and other economic problems, this has led to so many alternative means to meet ends need, this has led a lot of people into taking loans that have overbearing increase rates and other hidden charges that end up hanging around their neck for so long becoming a long overdue debt.

These kinds of loan companies are called loan sharks in my country, our sec has banned a good number of them and so have been fined because of their illegal operations and attempts to deceive unsuspecting citizens into taking loans without properly spelling out the conditions of the loan.

When it comes to gambling, there are rules guiding gambling companies and agents across the globe and these rules though differs in different nations but one of the commonest of the rules which I think is applicable to almost all the nations where gambling exist is the rule that gamblers must reach a certain number of age before they can use the betting platforms and that means for you to gamble, you must be a grown adult.
So that's why I think that nobody's to be blamed by the misfortunes of any gambler apart from the gambler. Betting agents do not force anyone to bet with them and shouldn't blamed for what happens after betting

Well, if you can lend a cash advance to your worker so he can pay his debt on the betting agent, then problem solved. However, you cannot guarantee that the same scenario will not happen again especially that you are making things easier for your worker to gamble and lose his money in the end.

For me, I’d say the one at fault here is the gambler itself since he’s not supposed to gamble more than his income. And if by chance he’s just taking advantage from the agent’s offer without the intention to pay, then I must say the gambler is not a responsible and a reliable one especially when it comes to paying off his debt.

Helping the worker who get into loan due to the gambling loss.Because it will make the worker to comfort zone and he will work for you in long run.If the loan of loss is low,the owner can afford to give for the gambler worker.If the loan amount above the one year salary of the worker,mostly all the owner will worry to give the money.Because it's hard for the employee to return the money because the worker already get into the gambling addiction.If the worker not in addiction,why he need to get loan and play the game.If I was the owner to that gambling worker,I will help him if the gambling loss is not above his one month salary.The important one is the worker should not reuse the money for the next gambling game.

I understand when it is meant that you have to risk in order to obtain some profit, that is something we know, however we as players sometimes have to have the degree of control of everything we do, that is, if we have control of what we have destined to lose there is no problem, because if it is lost, the loss is assumed and there should be no regrets or remorse, but if it is not assumed that things are like that or that they are not right, it is difficult, if a person has to play 200usd and lose it, then put more money even if it's 100usd more, and if you lose it, it's a mistake that shouldn't be made, and a player who bets more than he can afford to lose is what one can never do in life , no casino, nor any betting agent will say that they bet more than they should, that is our own decision, and due to this type of problem of betting more than normal, it is when they get desperate and blunders are made.

A casino betting agent is just a worker, they only have to stick to what they have to do, they cannot make attributions or decisions that do not correspond to them, because who or in any casino many unpleasant things can happen, like the one that happened , obviously the worker should be punished, because they should not go over the rules of the site, in fact they are unforgivable things in a job, a worker should not start inventing, also as I have said many times, this is about working with money, which makes it much more delicate, so things must be respected more, in fact when dealing with money, many permissions have to be requested before releasing it to anyone.

The rules in every casino, and even in any workplace, must always be respected, because as workers we cannot make decisions of that style, now the thing here is that the agent must answer for what he did, if the employer is benevolent, he He forgives the mistake, and continues working, but they have to punish him for something, because that's how things must be punished.

It's actually like playing on the stock exchange but with leverage. When you play with bets that you don't actually have. This is done only by greedy players, because any trader is always warned that trading with a chip carries huge risks. Similarly, in your case, this worker looked at what shed, but chose to take a risk. I'm sure he knew the rule that you need to play only for your own money, and which he can afford to spend. And as for the question of how long he will be loaned money - I think that as long as it is legally possible to recover from him, even after the incident of a long time. Everything has a limit, but both casinos and their agents like to drive people into debt. After all, they know perfectly well that you can't get away from them later.

Not only companies but also people closest to them seem to be reluctant to give loans to people who have debts due to gambling so they can pay off their debts to betting agents because that doesn't solve the problem at all, at other times the person can go back into debt to betting agents or other people or even worse to loan sharks just because they want to return to gambling, when he has the courage to owe a betting agent, then he proves how irresponsible he is by doing that.
What can be done is to make him aware not to repeat what he did and if he wants to give a loan, it must be with a clear agreement and by looking at his ability to pay.

That means casinos can get another advantage from lending money to gamblers. Actually it is a good idea but the casino should also know that not all gamblers can return the money they borrow. Some gamblers take a long time to be able to return their debts and interest to the casino. But some gamblers cannot even repay their debts and instead will lose all their belongings because they are all confiscated by the casino to guarantee their debts. Meanwhile, gamblers do not need to borrow money from casinos or other people because there is an additional risk they have to accept, especially if they cannot repay their debts.

I have always said something, to take a loan you have to have an incredible ability to pay, so as not to look bad, not to be badly paid and that the reputation of that person does not fall, because it is something that will always affect, for me the If the person who takes the loan is totally responsible, the person who grants the loan is also Somewhat to blame, however, that is something that can be debatable , because if you lend money and in a casino it must be with collateral unless it is a client who has gone to the casino all his life and who obviously trusts him a lot, is something that always happens , I have seen that there are many in the casino who have this kind of privileges , but they are people who answer to the casino as it is , coin the payments when they are, and that they have no delays in it.

The particular cases are usually very diverse, I would not do something like that, I have already said why, but the people who do it are quite emphatic, and perhaps because they let themselves be carried away by Emotions and that is not good, because one It Cannot be so weak , it is money that is being lent, there are many things at stake, what is most at stake is Responsibility, the ability to pay, the things that must be done to pay on time, without End of things that have to be taken into consideration.

When I see that there are things that are extremely careful , such as money , Loans , I have to carefully review everything, the terms, the payments of how much percentage , how much interest they ask us for, little can we be signing a possible unpayable sentence, and that It is not the idea either, we must also assume that a casino does not lose, and always has the Advantage , that is something that must be Considered.

That is why the responsibility in these cases falls on us as players, each person who is in a casino is responsible for their actions, because for that they are of legal age, they are considered adults and each person must assume their expenses and their mistakes, that is why It is that these things with the casinos are so delicate , and it has to be taken with great Measure.

I find it a bit of a surprise that casinos and betting agents want their customers to take on debt to gamble. Facilitating such debt themselves and loaning money to struggling gamblers only for them to lose more seems like a really bad business model. First of all the casino doesn't make any additional money, they only can win the money back that they gave the gambler as a loan. Everything more the gambler lost will have to be recovered later from his future income. There is no real guarantee that the betting agent or casino will recover their loan, because if the debt is too high the gambler can default. Wouldn't it make more sense for the casino to only have customers lose what they can afford to lose? Like that they would guarantee that their customers come back and can gamble for a long time. In the end they have to choose between a big payout today after which the gambler is broke and in debt or a smaller payout which is coming in regularly from their longstanding customers.

well i have never seen any casino lending money to people, casinos have licenses to operate like casinos or bookmakers and not like banks and give loans, they would not commit this type of crime, governments would be chasing casinos that at the same time they were turning into banks because the laws of all countries in the world are very strict on this issue of loans and banks, and casinos would not have two licenses, they would not have a license to operate a casino and at the same time a license to operate a bank. another point is about guarantees, casinos are designed to always win and customers lose

So, it wouldn't make any sense for a casino to keep lending people to play in the casino knowing that these people will lose money in the casino and won't be able to pay the loan, that's why, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense for casinos to give loans. also people who were going to borrow money to gamble would be making a serious mistake and with that they would no longer be gambling responsibly, they would be on the path of gambling addiction, they would be destroying their lives and I am sure that in some countries if they knew that some casino is giving out loans to its customers, governments would sue that casino for putting its citizens in a bad way

this problem would definitely lead to the arrest of the casino owners, in my country for example only banks can make loans, any person or company that provides loans and charges interest will be arrested. only banks can make loans charging interest in my country and probably in many countries things work that way. in my country people ask betting agents to give them a lottery ticket to pay days later, this is not a loan

Totally agree but i wont really be that surprised that there would be some side offerings or something that those VIP could be able to get some benefits or some features which those ordinary gamblers couldnt really be able to do so. Yes,its true that they arent banks which they could really be able to offer some loans or some free credits on which they could play. It would really be just a total suicide for the business if they would be letting someone who do able to play on the amount that have been provided. Arent they wont gonna be feeling out that kind of regret on the time that they had provided some fund and turns out to make some huge hit with those last gambling or gaming sessions? For sure it would really be a huge disappointment and regret if ever that happens and one of the risks that they had need to deal with but since the house is really that confident that they could really be able to win up in the end and ending up on getting some interest out of those advanced loans or amounts then thats an additional money for them but there's always that kind of risks
on whatever angle we are seeing.

Yes, maybe we have never seen a casino lend money to gamblers, especially gamblers who have lost playing before so they can continue playing gambling. And if there is, maybe the casino will not disclose it publicly and only the casinos and gamblers will know. But this activity seems quite attractive to casinos because they can get additional income from lending money to gamblers.

But if it violates government regulations, the government may immediately sanction the casino by revoking its license temporarily and the casino may have to pay a fine to the government. But if it doesn't matter to the government with the record that casinos have to pay higher taxes than other casinos, casinos can continue to carry out activities of lending money to gamblers. And although this is an advantage for gamblers to get money quickly through lending money from casinos, it is a bad way for gamblers because they can get even bigger losses and maybe the gamblers will not be able to repay the borrowed money.

We don't know which casinos use this method for their gamblers, so we can only guess. But this kind of practice could have been going on for a long time without anyone knowing and only people who frequent casinos know about it.

It seems that it would be very profitable for the casino if there is a service nearby that can lend money to players so that they can borrow and continue playing, which would subsequently bring even more profit for the casino. When casinos were destroyed in the country where I now live, I am sure that there was always a lambard or an organization issuing money loans next to them. Therefore, it is possible that online casinos are the organizers of such micro financial organizations. After all, if there is interest on their part, then they most likely did it.

The gambler knows the consequences of his action but he chose to ignore. Maybe because he is hoping that for using the loaned money, he might became lucky to recover his losses and repay back what he owed. Unfortunately it didn't happened and that make his situation worse since he's avoiding the responsibility. Thus if an agent or a casino offered a deal so the gambler can continue playing, think before accepting. Because in the end, if you didn't win, you have to face the consequences of not being able to control yourself.

I believe that is true. There will always be those people who like taking risks although it is not their own money which they are about to bet. Loans. Sharks will always be there monitoring every gambler and they target those who are experiencing great losses. They are easy to manipulate because they want to chase their losses and they will agree to any contract given to them as long as they can get the money as fast as they can.

With the story of OP though, the debtor has a chance to pay it back in just 4 days of working, I don't think it's that hard for him to do it so I bet he will pay up.
But there are stories that are more hardcore than this but those gamblers would not bother to tell it to anyone.
Thousands or millions of dollars in debt just to gamble their way.

That's true because the casino can get extra income by lending it to the losing gambler. But the problem is that the casino has to make sure that the gambler can return the money without a long time. And if not, the casino better not lend the losing gambler his money.

Organizations like the ones you mentioned will still exist and many will still operate underground because many people still need them. Even though people know they have to pay back the money at high interest, they still borrow money from them. And the organization is managed by the same person so that the profits that the organization gets will go to the owner.

Of course, such organizations have a strong legal base. Such organizations are created based on working and proven profitable projects. They are well aware of all the laws concerning bankruptcy and debt repayment, and they see the line when a person can no longer borrow money, because he will not give it back. I am not a lawyer, but I think it can be calculated somehow: through the property currently available to a person, as well as through the terms of forced labor, through which the debtor can be attracted to repay debts.

Nevertheless, I consider such organizations to be evil because they make any person's economic situation worse, since they require very high interest rates.

Such a thing is done by gamblers because he is truly blinded by defeat and added to the burning emotion that makes his brain no longer able to think clearly and think about the long-term risk effects that could occur if he takes the action of borrowing money with the purpose of continuing the betting session to be able to recover the losses that have just occurred.
Not a few gamblers do this and if the real blame is the gambler himself because he has gotten out of control and cannot think normally.

If there is a companion in every gambling activity, maybe it can put more pressure on or minimize every gambler who could be wrong in making decisions or actions, but unfortunately not all gamblers will have a companion when they are in the gambling industry.
If we look at land or traditional casinos, there are quite a lot of rich people who have assistants when they enter the casino and all of these assistants always give the best advice to their boss so that every action has better consideration.

I think those of us who gamble in online casinos can invite a trusted friend or wife to always monitor the gambling that we are doing so that we can provide discussion and not take risky actions such as borrowing money or being too obsessed with pursuing losses.
It's just that it seems that there are still many people who are too secretive about the gambling activities that are carried out so that it is impossible to order friends and wives to be able to supervise the gambling that is being carried out.

You may have considered the debt-ridden gambler's situation and tried to appeal to him to come forward to help. Which is certainly commendable. But when a gambler becomes addicted to gambling, every time you help him pay off his debt, he will go into debt again. So first you need to understand whether he is an addicted gambler or not. If he is not addicted then he must be helped so that he can pay off his debt. If such a non-addicted gambler can be helped, a good relationship can also be established between the two person.

This is a risky proposition, lending money to a person that you know is difficult, but doing so to help them paid a debt which was incurred while gambling seems like a bad idea.

As if you were to give them that loan then they could simply quit the next day, get another job at another place and now you will have to be the one spending your time to try to find them, and even if this did not happened now you have created the expectation that if they are in financial troubles you will give them a loan, and if you are not careful they could take you with you on their path to financial ruin.

In a normal state of calm, not all people's thinking works critically, and when losing, especially when the amount is large, thinking is very much mixed with feelings, and you can't expect any reasonable conclusions. Nedaano I studied how a dependent player crosses the line from losing his money to losing someone else's? After all, you can lose your money and it won't be a big deal, but if you lose money taken on credit, then your business is bad. It turns out that at such a moment the player thinks like this: "I've lost a lot of money now, but I just had a little bad luck, I need some more money and probability theory itself will help me, and if I increase the distance of games, and luck will return everything I owe." At the same time, he also increases the stakes to recoup. But we all understand what this is likely to lead to.

And it seems that such organizations know how to use loopholes in laws to use them to their advantage and earn extra revenue. There should be an improvement in the law that regulates it so that they can't take advantage of the loophole again. But how could that be because the people who make the laws could belong to those in the same organization. So they still won't change the law because it still benefits them. When the organization looks burdensome for the people, it has to get a change but it will come back to the people who set the law.

       -     If I look at the events, it literally seems like the betting agent is the one who is at fault, because even though he knew that the gambler's money was in 2k Nigerian currency, he still allowed him to lend it, we just don't know if he asked the gambler what his job was. that could be the reason for lending it.

But if the betting agent doesn't know the gambler's job, obviously the problem and mistake is clearly the agent's. Because he should not have given the loan if he knew that he had no source of income to pay what was owed to him.

It is true that if there is proper legal action in the case of such companies, they will never be able to collect high interest from individuals and it will be possible to eliminate fraud. They steal huge amount of money by scamming. Many are being held hostage and ransom is being demanded from their families. As we have inadequacy of our legal system in terms of prevention, there is a great inaction of our law enforcement forces. Since the law was passed, giving any speech against the ruling and powerful through digital media means that there is a fear of being sued under the digital security act. One party is taking advantage of it this is why the economic development is being hindered and the government has to take the right steps for the proper development of the law.

exactly., and more precisely, do not lend money to anyone, even if its your own employee or someone closest to you because the negative effect of giving a loan to anyone will destroy relationships and on the other hand financially will also be destroyed. I mean when you lend money to your friends, of course, one day you will end your friendship when you can not return the money and you really need the money.
like the case that was written by the OP even though its not clear who is at fault but in the end he will lose his customers for providing loans but taking advantage of the situation even though the gambler can return the money but after that the gambler will no longer bet there. from this problem we can take a valuable lesson that using borrowed money to gamble is not very good and also lending money to gamblers is also not very good in the long run.

Is it okay to lend your money in someone who needed it, but the thing is you are entitled to know where could be it went what could be the purpose of their loan and how will they pay you. So that it would not be a problem anymore and it would not make your relationship to that person be broken if something happen, it is your right as a lender to know where it could be use and when it will be sent back.

If they borrow money to buy necessities of life, I will lend it without expecting the money back, especially if he is a person who is truly deprived and finds it difficult to get his daily money. But if he said that he would use his money to gamble, I would say no to him based on how he would pay me the debt if he lost. Even though he insisted that he would win, I still would not lend him the money because it would be difficult for him to repay the loan even if he won. I don't want to wait in uncertainty while he doesn't want to pay off his debt yet and says he wants to double the money to get more. It was something that could not guarantee him winning any time he wanted.

Considering the daily wage of ₦‎2000 we can assume that the worker can afford to lose ₦‎1000 in gambling since he had that balance at first place.
So even if he doesn't gamble for 8 days then he will be able to accumulate ₦‎8000 and clear off his debt.
It is both the agent and the worker's fault in this case. Neither the agent should have allowed him credit nor the worker should have played in credit.

When you give a loan to someone either in the real world or in the form of a gambling balance, you should make sure that the other person is capable of paying it back. If a person has less salary or do not have enough sources to pay back the funds, then I am afraid that it will be difficult to recover the loan.

Now when you are giving a loan to a person to gamble, you are risking even higher because if he loses money in gambling, it would be impossible for him to return the loan. I don't know what was in the betting agent's mind that he decided to give a loan to the gambler  ???

makes sense. wise advice to give loan to people in need for something important I think its not a problem but if lending money to gamble seems to be a problem. there are lots of cases like this, Im even sure that people around you who gamble using money borrowed from their friend will definitely cut off their friendship because money is something that is very hot.

but different from what the OP said, the problem is with betting agent and gamblers or customers, which the end is related to their work, which has to pay off all credit by borrowing from their boss or other employees at work.

Well it's fine if we want to help others by giving some loans, it's a good act to help each other. But we also have to see who the person we are lending to is, I mean if you want to lend money first ask the person who wants to borrow it, ask what the money is for. If indeed the money is for primary needs for something sudden and urgently needed then it doesn't matter but if you give a loan to someone for gambling capital I think it would be better if you don't give it, are you sure your money will be able to return? maybe there are some who believe it but I have experienced that if I give loans easily then the next time they will borrow money again for various reasons, and only us they will choose because in the past it was very easy for them to get loans from us. At that time, I once lost money because they didn't keep their promise to pay their debts. That's right, money is very sensitive by nature and it can ruin a friendship, so I hope that before you give a loan, look at the person first, don't give them a lot of reasons not to pay because not only will you lose money but you will also lose a personal relationship with them.


As a result of borrowing too much money for gambling, it is indeed very likely that it will greatly interfere with all one's activities, they will be in debt everywhere including with other coworkers at their workplace. Gambling has led them to new problems in real life, along with many problems related to their main job. I see a lot of gamblers who spend their monthly salary just to pay off their debts, it looks ridiculous. 

It's really sad after get a school for 6-12 years, there are still many no brainer people and can't have a critical thinking to face a problem. Internet is really kill a lot people, it's not about crypto casino, but there are many videos that set a ridiculous target e.g. 25 years old you must have $1 Million, 30 years old you must have a big house, nice car and $10 Million etc etc. This make those young people want to achieve such crazy target when they're currently work and earn average wage which is impossible.

Factors might be; regular customer, known person, knows the person financial capability and related factors.

Although technically, regular casino workers are not supposed to give loans or do have the authority to execute such actions not unless they are allowed to do so. Loans always associated with credit checking and if eligible, it would just take a moment to be credited.

Generally, loans in casinos, if there's any, are rare to found.

And I don't even know if there's one exist even on a biggest casino.

Giving loans, whether for gaming or something else, has nothing to do with kindness or charity. Its a cold game of numbers and how people think. You're right that the borrower's ability to pay back should be considered, but do you really think the betting agent doesnt know that?

Here's a secret: the agent might not have wanted the loan paid back at all. Think about how much control, pressure, and power he has over someone who has so much debt that they are buried under it. Its not just about money; its about who has control over your life.

Gamblers, on the other hand, on the edge of danger because they want the highs and lows. And, to be honest? An agent making use of that? Survival of the best is just how things work in the wild.

To this and the question that you asked, I think the agent knows that he would lose the money to them even if it was borrowed to him. This could be a good reason because the capacity to repayment must be known and maybe the agent decided to influence him to play by offering to borrow the money and later to collect it back. This is just the same with real or physical business where a seller wants to sell off the goods about to spoil by all means and by that time any potential and worthy debtor can get it if influenced or indicate interest to buy even on credit.

Actually, to set a target like you said at their age is not ridiculous, as long as they are working towards it. I can say it's ridiculous when they have such a target without any other effort other than their job that earns an average salary. If that's the case, it's like they're sleeping during the day and then dreaming that a miracle will come to them and make them achieve that target. As long as they try to make it happen and do all the things, they can't be said to be ridiculous in my opinion.

lending money to anyone, especially if you don't know their intentions, is just bad business. Why? Because you're setting yourself up for failure, just as you experienced. Now, about this whole 'helping others' narrative, let's get real here: most people are out to serve themselves, not pay back loans. If someone's coming to you for gambling money, you should've seen the red flags immediately

Money is power, and you need to understand that. If you're just going to hand it over without a second thought, well, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. Forget friendships; if someone wants to gamble, let them find their own capital. I've seen how this game plays out. It's predictable, and you've been played. Next time, think twice before opening your wallet. People should be coming to YOU for opportunities, not handouts

That's the point, the agent shouldn't provide the play now, pay later option for people who don't have any way to repay the loan, he should simply ask for some collateral that he will keep until the gambler returns the money in case he loses all of it right there, and if they manage to win, they should pay the loan back right at that time and take their profit and either leave or gamble with it, and if they lose the borrowed money, they will only get their property when they return the loan.

If the agent follows this pattern, he won't need to chase a gambler just because they borrowed money from him and didn't pay it back because they will have their property that they can liquidate and use the money in case the gambler defaults on him and doesn't show up again to repay.

Sometimes most of those sporty bet shops normally allow there customers to play free bet and pay later to again there interest. But I think this time, this did not go the way he planned it. Gamblers that know that they don't have the fund to pay for bet should better stay off gambling than taking the risk to bet on credit and pay later. When a gambler accumulated so much credit when they bet and later loses, this could make them to be on the run for a long time before they are seen especially when they don't have the money to pay for the credit bets.

problems like this have often occurred in any part of the country and what is even more ridiculous and very sad is when someone continues to gamble using a credit card or loan money after that unconsciously the bill money is very high and has a very large loan amount someone commits suicide ending his life out of frustration with what he was doing and determined not to be able to return all of the loans and in other threads there were also discussions about this.

I remember some time ago at a large company near my city there was an employee or team from that large company and served as a development team and it was very surprising that he suddenly committed suicide and when investigated it turned out that he had many loans just to gamble and write messages before ending his life if he is unable to bear the burden of the loan.
with this story as an experience for anyone and wherever they are, do not occasionally borrow or receive loans from anyone just to gamble or have fun at gambling because in the long run it has very high risks.

Well that's right, that's why I say that it's better to ask first about what the money is used for, especially if the person borrowing has a gambling background then most likely the borrowed money will be used for gambling. Many cases like this happen that in the end those who lend money will lose the money and they will not keep the promise to pay the debt. Honestly, this is an experience and a warning for me and maybe for others who don't want this to happen to them.
So the point is gambling has brought a lot of problems, not only for people who gamble or who do it but some of the closest people will also be affected like some of the problems like I experienced this, it's true that it's better to think twice if someone wants to lend money, don't be too kind because it's for the good of all of us including friendly relationships.

If the person doesn't have a sudden need, he can collect the money to pay off the debt. But when there is a sudden need, he must have a hard time paying off his debts. This is why we should refrain from borrowing money from anywhere, including from sports betting shops, because sometimes we will find it difficult to pay back the debt. Our plans sometimes turn out differently than we expect, so we must accept that we can only gamble if we have money. There is still plenty of time to gamble when we have money, so we don't have to borrow from others. And that is a lesson for us where we have to remember not to go into debt or gamble.

IMHO, everything is saying already the exact thing of what has happened and what's the real job of a betting agent. Yeah, why would he let the gambler borrow money? To pressure him so he'll come back, so what if he won't? That's how a business will turn into dust if there are styles like that per se. And for the worker, it's better not to gamble if you don't have money and if life's too hard then don't spend what you can't afford to lose and we're all saying that many times and for different cases. As usual, it's very applicable to those type of gamblers that becomes out of control when they're having fun.

It seems to me that adequate betting shops that allow their regular customers to bet on credit are well aware that there is a possibility that the debt will not be returned. But given the fact that this is their regular client, they take this risk because they have already earned enough on it, and if the negative scenario is realized, then their loss will not be large. Plus they don't let you make big bets on credit. But I assume this in relation to adequate betting shops. In this case, everything was inadequate.

True, however many people are optimistic and naive by nature, so when they make a bet they assume they are going to win, and as such they basically assume there is not going to be any trouble because they do not have the money on hand at the moment.

However if someone does this enough times then they are bound to lose a few times and that is when huge problems can begin to appear, as there are still many countries in which casinos are owned by shady figures, and those people are willing to do anything in order to collect what you owe them.

Yes, that's a human who will never stop before they get something that even if it's difficult for them to get, they will keep trying until they succeed. And with that assumption, they are trying to win gambling even by spending a lot of money; they don't care because their goal is to win. They even think of borrowing money from the dealer, which is highly discouraged because there is a need to repay the loan.

Maybe both are to blame but casinos that provide loans to gamblers still want to get benefits outside of their income and that is why casinos continue to provide loans to those who still want to continue gambling. But gamblers should realize that what the casinos do will only hurt them, especially if they experience another loss. Casinos can take what is in them without remaining especially if the gambler borrows a very large amount of money even the casinos can take all the important things in their house. So it's not easy to blame the casino because in this case, the casino wants to make more profits while the losing gamblers still want to recover their losses and win. Even though that is something that is difficult for the gambler to get, so maybe the gambler is to be blamed, but I don't know.

You are right, atleast, a neighbor of mine whom lives in the same compound with me is a sports betting agent as well, its the business she and her husband does for a living.
There have been countless times I've heard the woman yelling at some customers on the phone to help bring their money, and on one occasion, I tried to find out from the husband why the wife was yelling at a customer like that on the phone, the husband told me it's some of their regular customers who they allow to play some bets on credit, and because they lost, they have refused to pay the money, I was like "why would you guys even allow customers to play on credit in the first place", he said it's because they are regular customers, and the asked for it, if they do not grant the request, they lose the customer and also become enemies..

I guess it's just one of those downsides of running a betting shop, such things can't be avoided if you are a jovial person.

I agree with you on that and I don't know how sportbooking agents are fund of doing that because it pauses a higher risk for them on the long run if the bet fails to win who then bears the loss because the gambler already has nothing on him the reason why he/she option in to play on credit in the first place,  most of such incidences are born out of the over trust on the gamblers to be able to make up for their shortcomings.

The ops in the story gave me a very sad update about the situation a few days back when I saw him in the neighbourhood,  he said the gambler that played on credit had moved out of time without paying the debt,  and the debt was deducted from his salary at the end of the month by the boss

There are only two ways casinos can make this work, the first one is that there is a very strong legal system on the country in which they are located and they have the lawyers and the money to go after those gamblers no matter where they hide.

The second option is that those casinos are owned by criminals or other people which consider themselves to be above the law, and as such they can make use of all kind of illegal methods to try to get their money back.

It is also a marketing strategy on them because it will attract the gambler to bet more as he can pay it later. This is like those shopping platforms that let you pay later on so that you'll be tempted, which again will put the gambler in debt, and for sure the way they ask for payment on this is harsh, like threatening you, though on profit instances for sure the total money that they will lend to you is the total that they got to you, and the more you do it, the greater the amount.

And people fall for it every single time as they are too used to buy everything on credit these days, if you were to try to convince people decades ago about this they would look at you as if you were crazy, as the only products that were bought on credit were the things almost no one could afford outright, like a car.

However people have lost the fear they had to becoming indebted, and many businesses have taken advantage of this new trend to deceive them and get them heavily indebted.

The agent lured the gambler to borrow to be able to continue playing. It's also his fault for tolerating and encouraging the gambler despite of knowing that this person will be in a hard position for losing what the gambler borrowed. Well, it's not surprising since he is a betting agent but in this case he probably realized that what he did is not wise since the gambler didn't return to pay what he owe.

Clearly this gambler didn't control himself resulting to losses and debt, now he will pay the price. It's a lesson learned for him and a reminder for other gamblers to only play using your own money and set a limit on when to stop.

I've just shaken my head and thought to the people all around me that they are really doing this right now. I mean, imean you are right, people are very scared before to take out a loan or be in debt because even if they can afford to pay it, they are always thinking of what if they can't pay. All the negative aspects they are thinking about are defensive, but right now almost all of my relatives have loans and they are paying them, and they are not scared to take more loans. Well, again, this is the new generation right now, and again, there is good and bad debt, which can affect you, but for sure, in gambling, it is bad debt.

It will be a problem for them if they are not afraid of getting into debt even though they could experience problems if they are late paying the loan. And because they borrow from the casino, they will have to face the casino's bouncer when the casino wants to collect their debt. And if they can't pay their debts, the bouncer will hit them and maybe take things from their house so they can get the money they borrowed.

The marketing strategies implemented by casinos have succeeded in trapping several gamblers who want to continue gambling to get money quickly and continue playing immediately. But they don't know what will happen if they can't pay their debts.

I think fear is definitely there, but it's like fear is at war with confidence. Maybe you understand what I'm saying, I mean if their fear is outweighed by their very high confidence then naturally they don't think twice about borrowing from a bank or to a casino agent. But I said that on average it happens or that belief is in gamblers who have experienced a high level of addiction, they have been completely dominated by a sense of belief and also lust, therefore it is very likely that they take uncontrollable actions, even they do not even think about how to pay the debt, all that is in their mind is that they are sure they will be able to win with the borrowed money and then pay the debt from the proceeds of victory, but what happens? yes they lose again haha this is very ridiculous.

That's right, the casino system is very smart, they provide a place to borrow and also provide a place to get rid of the gambler's money from the loan, it's really smart in my opinion and like you said there are definitely many who are trapped there. So my point is, keep a healthy mindset, don't overdo it, just do what you can and with the money you can afford to lose there because it will be useful to keep your psychology calm.

Those who borrow money from casinos to continue gambling will not think about fear because they are already dominated by lust and emotions to recover their losses and get their winnings again. They will not think about how they will return the money later because their high ego and overconfidence have convinced them that they will win at gambling today. That makes them brave enough to borrow money from the casino because they have a strong desire to continue gambling, especially if in the previous round, they almost "won." And it is true that this lust will easily tempt them and make them dare to make decisions which, if they think about it again, are the wrong decisions.

And casinos know what gamblers want so they open other services in the form of lending money. Of course, the casino charges high interest because it is a side business owned by the house. People who don't think twice about borrowing money won't consider the risks because they want to gamble and try to win. We have to be able to control ourselves and not have the thought of borrowing money from the casino, especially if the interest is too high because that will make things easier for us later.

Even the casino has a limit, if a player enters too much debt, they block the credit line until the debt is fully repaid. Casinos do not need players who are always in debt, they need to make a profit, and if this player is insolvent, then they are not interested. And if a player is ready to play with borrowed money, then he is already addicted, and this is a big problem that needs help.

The gambling people after get into the addiction will not hear the reason by the lending people.The never fear of return the money or not.They just get the loan in any online platform,the play all the game by to find the luck into the game.If the money was loss by the gamblers,he never worry to fail on the repayment.They just get the loan from the other person.Like this they do without any hesitation due to the huge addiction to the gambling.The mind thought of the gamblers will be to do arrange the money for the next game,they need to get away from the addiction to leave a normal life.

I have no problem at all with people getting a mortgage to buy a house as almost no one has the money on hand to do this, and when we add the interests on that kind of loan tend to be the lowest, then it is obvious this is one of the best kind of debts that you can acquire.

But the culture has changed dramatically since credit cards were introduced and now it is not rare for people to accumulate a huge level of consumer debt, to the point they are unable to pay it and they bankrupt themselves.

There is always more to the story, the both of them in my understanding may have some outstanding situation in the past. Maybe the player must have done similar things and it favored both the player and dealer. And then the dealer became familiar or cool with him until the recent one, the results weren't good. Because if the dealer wasn't familiar with the player's attitude he wouldn't have allowed him to play extra games, while in debt. The player will always be at fault, for not controlling himself. As for the dealer, he wants to earn more money, he's also good at asking after the lost money. It's also a disadvantage for the dealer to be calm or not laying down straight rules for players in his gambling shop. He would have stayed in his gambling shop, and wait for the gambler to be back after working with OP. Because such a player, will still patronize him because of the outstanding debt or clear them with the money he's earned. It's not bad to owe or to ask a person to refund the money owed. They're into business and it's left for them to settle their disputes separately.

Even though they are never afraid to return the money, the money must still be paid for whatever results they get. If they borrow money from online platforms, they must also return it. Even though they can get loan money from other people, it will only add to their problems because their loan debt will get bigger and bigger, and they cannot pay back all their loan debt at once unless they win a lot of money. Real gamblers should be able to think that borrowing from the bookie will only give them trouble when the bill comes.

Maybe the scenario is like that because anything can happen. Maybe the relationship between them is that the gambler and the dealer know each other so the gambler can easily borrow money from the dealer. By having a dealer willing to lend money to the losing gambler, the dealer can get additional income. Meanwhile, the gambler must be able to pay his debt to the dealer and if he doesn't pay his debt, he will get into trouble with the dealer, who will ask for his money back. Although it is not bad to be in debt, if it is borrowed money, it is best not to use it for gambling because we will never know when we will win and be able to pay back the borrowed money.

I'm not sure if my understanding is correct; maybe the reason the betting agent allowed the gambler is because, apart from being a regular customer, the betting agent probably also knows where the gambler works. Or maybe he has confidence in the gambler that he will pay him back, or maybe it's not the first time the gambler has borrowed from them. And the betting agent also knows where he lives. Because he probably won't lend it if he has no idea where he lives or what his source of income or job is.

I think the issue many have with this is that a casino should have no business lending money to their clients, in most countries you need a license in order to provide that service and I doubt most casinos have that license.

So while there is little doubt the gambler is responsible for asking for a loan and gamble with money they cannot afford to lose, it is not as if the casino is blameless, as they are taking advantage from a person that obviously has problems by performing an illegal act themselves.

Well the bad thing about this is that the agent cannot go beyond the things of the rules that exist in a company, because a casino is considered a company, at least that's how I see it and in fact it is like that, we as good Players know that when we are in a casino, the worst thing we can do is lend money to gamble, that is a bad move, because when a person runs out of money in a casino, but it is already something very irresponsible, because being in a casino, you can't put all the money you have in your pocket, you have to leave it, because you are entering a place where the disadvantage of the house is evident, where you cannot let yourself be carried away by impulses, and where it is obviously the safest thing to do. It is losing, if you play in a neighborhood and lost money, already with a considerable amount, it is not responsible to spend everything you have, worse still, when this is seen as having a type of consideration when a loan will be made, it is the player's fault. irresponsible, and now after something like this is done and the sales agent in the casino, or the person in charge of keeping an eye on the games in the casino, knows that to obtain loans to a particular person it must be under authorization from someone That he is above him is he gives loans like that, well it is not right, and he would be going above an authority, so I would say that the fault lies with the calcino agent rather than the player, because if an addicted player enters Once they will also give you a loan and that doesn't work, because things don't work out that way, an easy job is going away if they act like that.

A person who is approved for a sale or a loan within the casino must be authorized by the person belonging to it, and I believe that before that a lot of papers must be signed where in reality they leave even collateral in case the person cannot pay, In this sense things can be much more difficult for others and then no type of employee can make decisions like that.

There are times that if the customer is already regular like if the owner keeps seeing that gambler betting big or betting money on a regular basis they will just become friends  which will be the other reason why they were provided money. They will say it is a loan but without paper it would just be borrowed money unless there are papers and requirements needed before taking out a loan which I noticed there are none in casinos which is still not illegal but doing this is inhumane for me because you should be helping people to prevent addiction but you are kind of putting more gas in the fire.

Business will be business which is why they will allow the gambler to borrow money as they gain profit on it and at the same time it will be returned to them when the gambler loses unless the owner is really taking care of their gambler they will preventing them from getting addicted by not allowing a loan.

Sometimes paperwork is unnecessary, especially when borrowing money from loan sharks. This is because your life serves as collateral, and you already know the consequences if you fail to repay. Lending from loan sharks operates differently from traditional banks, where legal documents and tangible collateral are required to safeguard against potential losses.

That's why, in my case, if I needed to borrow money for gambling, I would avoid loan sharks. Apart from the exorbitant interest rates, the stakes involve risking your life if you fail to meet your repayment obligations.

Loan sharks should be avoided at all costs no matter how the difficult circumstances you are in, I have heard from some people about their experiences and the interests rates are crazy as they are compounded daily, so if you had any money issues before then those will only become way worse by asking a loan to them.

And while asking for such a loan for a medical emergency is bad enough, doing so just so a person can gamble is in my opinion a life-changing mistake.