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

[wiss19]

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!

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.

[Mauser]

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?

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.

[Strongkored]

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.

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

[Silberman]

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.

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.

[len01]

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.

[Zoomic]

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.

[ethereumhunter]

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!

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.

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.

[KTChampions]

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.

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.

[bitgolden]

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!

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 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.

[Gozie51]

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.

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.

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.

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 .

[iv4n]

...

Though I agree with what you say that a person is responsible for what he does, you are totally not getting the point here...

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.

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.

[darewaller]

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.

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. 

[noormcs5]

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.

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).

[maydna]

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. 

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.

[Altryist]

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.

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.

[Gyfts]

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.

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.

[Silberman]

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.

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.

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.

[molsewid]

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. 

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.

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.

[Woodie]

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!!

[Wiwo]

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.