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

[Twentyonepaylots]

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.

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

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

[Wiwo]

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 disciplining himself and I will blame the betting agent for not knowing that he should not borrow any gambler's money.

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

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

[BITCOIN4X]

~Snip

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

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

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

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

[bitbollo]

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

[goldkingcoiner]

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

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

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

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

[NeilLostBitCoin]

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

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

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

[Frankolala]

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

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

[Wiwo]

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.

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

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

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

[Rabata]

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

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

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

[Casdinyard]

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

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

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

[lionheart78]

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

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

[Lanatsa]

Question is:

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

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

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

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

[Marykeller]

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

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

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

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

[Aikidoka]

This is really strange! I don't know how they can allow him to bet with money he doesn't even own. For example let's say you have 0.5 BTC and you lose it while gambling, then the casino gives you more money to bet and if you lose that as well, you'll end up in debt. I have never seen a casino that gives money to its customers without some kind of agreement for repayment that's why It's kinda strange. 

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

If the gambler is trustworthy, he would work for four days and pay off his debts. However simply if he's not trustworthy I don't think he will pay but if they're legal papers in between, I think the casino could make him pay if they have legal proof and take legal action. If he refuses to pay they could potentially even make him go to jail.

[smyslov]

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?

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

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.

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

[Merit.s]

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

[Quidat]

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

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

[DoublerHunter]

~snip~
Question is:

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

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

[carlfebz2]

~snip~
Question is:

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

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

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

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

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

[Gozie51]

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.

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

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

Question is:

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

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