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

[piebeyb]

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. 

[1714948082]

1714948082

[1714948082]

1714948082

[1714948082]

1714948082

[Alisha-k]

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?

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

[swogerino]

Question is:

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

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.

[Blitzboy]

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.

[Agbe]

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.

[Biscutard]

Question is:

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

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.

[Fiatless]

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?

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.

[lienfaye]

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

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.

[aioc]

Question is:

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

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.

[Jody.Drummer]

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.

[coin-investor]

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?

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

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.

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.

Question is:

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

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.

[GideonGono]

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.

[Stable090]

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

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.

[ethereumhunter]

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.

[Dimitri94]

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.

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.

[EarnOnVictor]

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

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.

[noorman0]

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.

[wiss19]

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.

[rhomelmabini]

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.

[jrrsparkles]

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?

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.