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

[Doan9269]

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.

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.

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.

[Weawant]

Question is:

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

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.

[AicecreaME]

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.

[tusandii]

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.

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.

[knowngunman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Question is:

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

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  some agent does not have joy at all. I guess that one is too cool.

[Doan9269]

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.

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.

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.

[RockBell]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[avp2306]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ojima-ojo]

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.

[Cantsay]

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.

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.

[Blitzboy]

`

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.

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.

[ethereumhunter]

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.

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.

[Wapfika]

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.

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?

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

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.

[Eureka_07]

<snip>

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.

[elevates]

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.

[_act_]

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.

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.

[demonica]

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.

[Queentoshi]

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?

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.

[borovichok]

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.

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.

[Mr.suevie]

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.