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

[uneng]

Question is:

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

The agent acted with second intentions. He knew the gambler was avid to play and that he didn't have more money left, but at same time he saw on this an opportunity to trap the gambler into a long term debt with the local casino. Ethically he is wrong, because he took advantage of someone vulnerable, although for the law it means nothing. It's still the gambler's fault to have accepted credit. It was a conscious decision to accept credit and now he will have to pay the consequences for his choice.

I really don't know if he will manage to earn the money somehow to re-pay the casino. Probably he will have to ask for help from family, friends or even the local bank, otherwise we don't know what the agent can do against his physical integrity... It's a very serious situation he finds himself in and I've already seen many people who were murdered for not paying their loans back.

[1714617489]

1714617489

[1714617489]

1714617489

[1714617489]

1714617489

[Mr.right85]

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?

Well, it's much easier to fault the betting agent as, should henot have allowed the customer some credit facilities, then there would have been no reason or need for any catastrophe.
Still, this guy in question (customer) is a supposedly regular. Someone known to the agent to be credit worthy and probably might have tried something similar in the past and sorted it out. Maybe this time was a chance to learn some hard lesson.

I would blame the gambler for reasons not to have gambled responsibly. That's why gambling is reserved for sensible adults. Those who can say 'No to themselves' and stand by it. Clearly your staff isn't that person and let's greed get the best of him.

He should pay up what he owes, he incurred the debt and is liable to pay.

[Nheer]

The person who acted foolishly in this situation was the owner of the betting store, perhaps he is new to the gambling business. The phrase "No bet on credit" is always prominently displayed on every betting establishment. The only circumstance in which bets may be placed on credit is when the bettor possesses property that is of sufficient value to serve as collateral for the payment of the debt and has a set amount of time—usually 48 hours—to pay it off. If the bettor defaults, the property will be sold and the proceeds used to settle the debt.

When you allow a gambler play on credit without any collateral it will be difficult to get the money back. The shop owner made a huge mistake and the only way out is to conclude to let him pay some percentage for a certain period until payment is completed.

[ChiBitCTy]

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?

They are both at fault here, but in two different ways.  First, the gambler is at fault because he made a deal/contract to pay back the funds that he gambled.  It doesn't matter whether he won or lost, he owed those funds to the casino manager/store owner, plain and simple. 

Now the store owner/gambling boss made a poor decision allowing the guy to take out credit that he knew he'd probably have a hard time giving back to him if he didn't win his bets.  That's just dumb on his part to loan out the money.

But the gambler is 100% at fault here.

[len01]

-snip

I would blame the gambler for reasons not to have gambled responsibly. That's why gambling is reserved for sensible adults. Those who can say 'No to themselves' and stand by it. Clearly your staff isn't that person and let's greed get the best of him.

He should pay up what he owes, he incurred the debt and is liable to pay.

well, maybe this is one of the mistakes of gamblers, maybe if the gambler has control and responsibility for every bet he makes, it certainly won't be like this. because we know that casino agents only offer something special for their customers and it is only the gambler who must refuse the credit offer.
if the gambler could control himself not to use large sums and control himself not to borrow more than he could, I think everything would be fine.
but nevertheless you said something true that the debt still has to be paid and it has indeed become a valuable lesson for gamblers not to make the same mistake.

[worle1bm]

I would say both are at fault because the worker should have known the risks before taking credit as he was going over budget which shows he's addicted towards gambling and the agent is also at fault who let him play with credit even after knowing his deposit value.The worker has borrowed money but agent should not give it in these cases where pure luck is involved so recovery becomes difficult Unless they have some installment plans to pay it off.Also advice worker to be in his limits otherwise he would loose everything in gambling.

[maydna]

I would say both are at fault because the worker should have known the risks before taking credit as he was going over budget which shows he's addicted towards gambling and the agent is also at fault who let him play with credit even after knowing his deposit value.The worker has borrowed money but agent should not give it in these cases where pure luck is involved so recovery becomes difficult Unless they have some installment plans to pay it off.Also advice worker to be in his limits otherwise he would loose everything in gambling.

I assume the worker feels great pleasure from gambling and forgets that he has suffered many losses. When someone has been playing gambling for too long and still sees a balance in his account, he will think he still has money so he can use it to gamble. It is a mistake to continue playing, especially if the money is loan money from an agent or someone else. But the agent should have looked at the history or track record of the worker to find out how his financial position has been. If the worker never gambles to the point of using big money, the agent should not allow him to gamble beyond his limits.

[molsewid]

I would say both are at fault because the worker should have known the risks before taking credit as he was going over budget which shows he's addicted towards gambling and the agent is also at fault who let him play with credit even after knowing his deposit value.The worker has borrowed money but agent should not give it in these cases where pure luck is involved so recovery becomes difficult Unless they have some installment plans to pay it off.Also advice worker to be in his limits otherwise he would loose everything in gambling.

I assume the worker feels great pleasure from gambling and forgets that he has suffered many losses. When someone has been playing gambling for too long and still sees a balance in his account, he will think he still has money so he can use it to gamble. It is a mistake to continue playing, especially if the money is loan money from an agent or someone else. But the agent should have looked at the history or track record of the worker to find out how his financial position has been. If the worker never gambles to the point of using big money, the agent should not allow him to gamble beyond his limits.

In this case they are both wrong and casino will suffer losses because of them, if it is traditional casino they can give collaterals so that they can give something when they don't have money left. I think sometimes agent did some personal details digging before getting a prospect if they not it will be sure that they will encounter this kind of people.

[fortunecrypto]

Well, it's much easier to fault the betting agent as, should henot have allowed the customer some credit facilities, then there would have been no reason or need for any catastrophe.
Still, this guy in question (customer) is a supposedly regular. Someone known to the agent to be credit worthy and probably might have tried something similar in the past and sorted it out. Maybe this time was a chance to learn some hard lesson.

I would blame the gambler for reasons not to have gambled responsibly. That's why gambling is reserved for sensible adults. Those who can say 'No to themselves' and stand by it. Clearly your staff isn't that person and let's greed get the best of him.

He should pay up what he owes, he incurred the debt and is liable to pay.

Of course, if you take a loan or if you owe someone money then you have to pay but I don't think its ok to demand payment if the player cannot afford to pay the amount, he will only pay based on what is excess on his salary and the casino agent will have to wait for that, here in our country debt will not put you in jail, the worker can only give a promissory note and his payment is on his ability to pay, that's lesson learned for the agent that he should pick who will give a loan.
If I were his manager I will fire him for lack of good judgment.

[Cookdata]

I would say both are at fault because the worker should have known the risks before taking credit as he was going over budget which shows he's addicted towards gambling and the agent is also at fault who let him play with credit even after knowing his deposit value.The worker has borrowed money but agent should not give it in these cases where pure luck is involved so recovery becomes difficult Unless they have some installment plans to pay it off.Also advice worker to be in his limits otherwise he would loose everything in gambling.

The agent should position itself outside the circle, it should be between the worker responsible for taking bets from the customer who has incurred losses by betting on credit. The primary duty of the worker attending to customers is to strictly prohibit gamblers from betting on credit. However, it is possible that the worker may have been influenced by the gratuities received when a gambler successfully wins bets. It seems that the gambler has been tipping the worker each time he cashes out his winnings, following the customary practice of physical gambling, and the worker may have overlooked the professional etiquette of their role.

The only situation in which I believe the agent would intervene is if the gambler refuses to settle their debts. In such cases, the involvement of law enforcement becomes inevitable, and a resolution must be reached between the worker, the gambler, and the agent, one of them(the gambler and the worker) will be responsible for paying off the accumulated debt owed to the agent.

[YOSHIE]

Question is:

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

If I don't misunderstand the agent/casino and the bettors, the basic problem is credit from the agent to the user, because he only has 1k balance, because of the kindness of the agent, because he is a regular customer, of course the agent trusts 8k capital to bet, hoping that the user can win more than 8k, but damn he loses it all.

For that, if asked who was at fault, for me of course the user was wrong, he was greedy and didn't consider the risk of loss, he didn't think about taking 8k funds with what he paid for it, profit if you win and if you lose the bet as it has happened, of course the risk must be borne by the user to pay the credit funds.

The agent is not wrong, because he trusts the user as a regular customer, of course he gives the credit, it's still fortunate that the agent employed the user for several days to pay off the credit, that person worked without a salary, because the debt had been cut off.

[slapper]

Question is:

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

The agent acted with second intentions. He knew the gambler was avid to play and that he didn't have more money left, but at same time he saw on this an opportunity to trap the gambler into a long term debt with the local casino. Ethically he is wrong, because he took advantage of someone vulnerable, although for the law it means nothing. It's still the gambler's fault to have accepted credit. It was a conscious decision to accept credit and now he will have to pay the consequences for his choice.

I really don't know if he will manage to earn the money somehow to re-pay the casino. Probably he will have to ask for help from family, friends or even the local bank, otherwise we don't know what the agent can do against his physical integrity... It's a very serious situation he finds himself in and I've already seen many people who were murdered for not paying their loans back.

This case you've outlined indeed highlights pressing ethical, legal, and socio-economic questions. The betting agent, capitalizing on the gambler's weakness with full awareness, dismisses moral considerations – a reprehensible act of exploiting vulnerability for personal gain. Yet, as you astutely acknowledged, laws don't always parallel moral guidelines.

Projecting the gambler's ability to settle the debt is challenging, given his low-income situation. It's a multi-layered socio-economic issue, leading to financial uncertainty and, in grave circumstances, endangering personal security. The potential fallout could be severe, from strained relationships to mental health deterioration and even violent disputes.

[Issa56]

In this case they are both wrong and casino will suffer losses because of them, if it is traditional casino they can give collaterals so that they can give something when they don't have money left. I think sometimes agent did some personal details digging before getting a prospect if they not it will be sure that they will encounter this kind of people.

The two of them are at fault, why will the you gamble on debt if not that the person is addicted, and why will the agent allow the gambler to gamble on debt. But most agents in traditional gambling shops are among the set of people that are encouraging gambling addiction, if the agent didn't allow the gambler to continue gambling then he wont have gambled on debt, just because he want to make his money, he gave him the opportunity to gamble on debt and pay later which at the end, the gambler those not have any means to pay back yet.

You said the casino will suffer losses because of then, but you are wrong, the casino is not going to suffer any loss, the casino will have to use the agents salary to pay for the debt the gambler is owing, so the agent and the gambler will have to look for how they will settle themselves, but the debt wont affect the casino, rather its going to affect the gambling agent.

[Jody.Drummer]

I would say both are at fault because the worker should have known the risks before taking credit as he was going over budget which shows he's addicted towards gambling and the agent is also at fault who let him play with credit even after knowing his deposit value.The worker has borrowed money but agent should not give it in these cases where pure luck is involved so recovery becomes difficult Unless they have some installment plans to pay it off.Also advice worker to be in his limits otherwise he would loose everything in gambling.

I assume the worker feels great pleasure from gambling and forgets that he has suffered many losses. When someone has been playing gambling for too long and still sees a balance in his account, he will think he still has money so he can use it to gamble. It is a mistake to continue playing, especially if the money is loan money from an agent or someone else. But the agent should have looked at the history or track record of the worker to find out how his financial position has been. If the worker never gambles to the point of using big money, the agent should not allow him to gamble beyond his limits.

The agent didn't think about anything else because what he thought was the profit for his customer, however he was wrong because having or not having money shouldn't give loans, especially for gambling, and to be honest I've just heard of agents giving loans to gambling customers, because agents should know better what are the risks.
who gambles, I think it's no longer necessary to talk about that what he did was wrong, although maybe he got great pleasure from the game.
Now for me, both have to bear the risk, the gambler has to bear the risk of the lost money that he played with before he made the loan, and the agent also has to bear the risk if the gambler does not return the money he borrowed.

[seoincorporation]

It's a complex situation because was the decision of the customer to wager with credit. A responsible gambler would stop after losing the first $1k and not keep going until losing $8k, that wasn't a smart move at all, but here the problem is that we don't know how persistent was the working trying to persuade the client to get more money to bet. For me that description sounds as rage betting trying to recover with a martingale that goes terribly wrong.

[CarnagexD]

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

Well a proper discussion regarding on settlement made should be discuss towards the betting agent since there's nothing they can do with this since your worker cannot pay in full since he is earning low only. This is a lesson that need to learn by your worker that never bet exceed on his earning capacity since he experience more worst than this.


Also never do any decision that you cannot take especially if its risky on his side this is a hard lesson need to face by your worker.

But if you want to be real, this is absolutely not the case. Tendencies are the gambler will be lending again another money by another or the same person. Then he will risk it to the betting agent. Here in my country this often happens. Until the gambler loses it all again now with bigger debt. And then weeks later, that gambler is nowhere to be found now. This is hard to believe actually, but this is truly happening. They say, that before even the dice roll in the game, they already know who will be the loser. And that is scary.

[Maslate]

Both should be blamed actually. If the bettor is a responsible gambler, then he should know when to stop when he sees his balance is already used up. Gambling will make you lose more especially if you decide to gamble more. And on the side of the betting agent, though I know it’s his job to offer some credit, but he should also be aware that taking advantage with the gambler in this situation will cause the gambler to think unreasonably and that he will end up with a very wrong decision. So if the gambler can’t pay him this time, then he should know how to be patient and just wait until the gambler is able to pay.

[alastantiger]

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

Obviously, the betting agent has some closeness with the gambler because I do not think that he will do like this to every other gambler at this shop. Depending on where you live, you should speak to a lawyer and see if the matter would hold any weight in the court of law. If it won't, then the betting shop owner must count this as one of the losses encountered in this business. Additionally, the next employee to work for him should be micromanaged to ensure that this incident doesn't repeat itself.

[madnessteat]

^

In my opinion, the practice of gambling in debt borders on lawlessness and if a gambler will not pay back money for a long time, he will have problems. I personally think that if he won't pay back his gambling debt, he will be taken over by tough guys who will gladly force a debtor to take out a loan or borrow money from someone else for 10-15% of the amount owed. This scheme is as old as the world and there is no point in proving anything in court if you played in a casino with someone else's money and lost it. A debt is a debt.

[Pandu Geddon]

It's a complex situation because was the decision of the customer to wager with credit. A responsible gambler would stop after losing the first $1k and not keep going until losing $8k, that wasn't a smart move at all, but here the problem is that we don't know how persistent was the working trying to persuade the client to get more money to bet. For me that description sounds as rage betting trying to recover with a martingale that goes terribly wrong.

yes, that's because gamblers have no control over the games they play. It's possible that the casino manager provides free spins or some bonuses at the gambler's credit for playing the game. but if it happens like that it is only to make the gambler play longer, not to spend more money when he wants to avenge his defeat.
the situation will only hurt the gambler more.