Who is to be blamed, the gambler or the betting agent

[Silberman]

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.

[Rabata]

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?

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.

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.

[tusandii]

-snip-

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.

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.

[adzino]

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.

[Reatim]

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.

[len01]

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.

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.

[ethereumhunter]

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.

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.

[Solosanz]

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.

[AicecreaME]

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.

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.

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.

[Shamm]

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.

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.

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.

[Gozie51]

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.

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 .

[Japinat]

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.

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.

[Altryist]

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.

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.

[klidex]

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.

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.

I agree with what you say because gambling always provides the best facilities for its customers and people are given the best facilities but only for the casino not for the gamblers.
Because providing credit to customers is indeed very profitable for the gambling business, but in the long run it is indeed the gambler who will lose and the gambler himself should be responsible for controlling himself so that he does not accept this offer.

[LUCKMCFLY]

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.

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.

[Rabata]

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.

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.

[ethereumhunter]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 .

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.

[KTChampions]

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.

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.

[Oilacris]

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.

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.

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.

[freedomgo]

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.

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.

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.