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

[Fivestar4everMVP]

^

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.

Yeah,, indeed dept is a dept, but in this case, I can't go without blaming the betting agent, on no account was he supposed to allow the gambler gamble on credit, knowing the nature of gambling and how humans react to such losses, it is always very much easier for almost every one to pay off a loan borrowed to solve a real life Issue, than pay a loan borrowed to gamble, most especially if the money is lost in the course of gambling, but then, it's easy if the gambler won, atleast from the proceeds of the winning, he can easily settle the loan and keep the profit, but if the money is lost, like in the case where the betting agent allowed the gambler to bet on credit, it takes some one who Is extra ordinarily disciplined to settle such credit, as its almost the same as being forced to give away money to someone when they have not rendered any service to you, or being forced to pay someone even the service the person rendered to you is a very bad one and does not deserve to be paid for.

[1714537989]

1714537989

[Mahanton]

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.

Maybe they do grant out such giving some credit for someone to play more on just on having the belief that a certain gambler might really be that getting addicted even more and might be using up his entire life
savings on playing gambling and this is why they do grant up some amount of credit on which a certain individual could make use of and this is why it do keep on piling up.Good thing is that they do able to stop
it on certain few folds and not granting thousands of dollars for a certain gambler. We dont know on what are their criterias before you could get such credit but most of the time or simply talking about the standard
operation then it would really be that not so common on granting out these kind of opportunities or features on which you could gamble out on having that credit.
We know that they are running a business on here and it is really just that cant be possible that they would be granting out such request considering that not anyone are capable on repaying them back on time.

[qwertyup23]

By making installment adjustments in my opinion, how much is his ability in one installment and asking him to do it until it is paid off, if the player still cannot pay his debt then it is the fault of the betting agent because he is greedy enough to let his customer gamble more than the financial capacity that the customer has, it becomes the thing that can be when a person becomes greedy because it will benefit him so when the reality is the opposite then that is a risk he has to accept because it also leads someone to gamble more than their means.

When it comes to a complaint for a recovery for a sum of money, if the person cannot fulfill his obligation on time which is stipulated by the judge, then the sheriff can proceed against the personal or real property of the debtor in this case. If the person who gambled cannot fulfill his obligation of paying all of the sums required, then the judge may order for any of his properties to be sold in favor of the creditor-agent in this case.

At the end of the day, it depends on the ruling of the judge on how he would perceive the case depending on the stipulated facts. But the fact remains that the debtor has a debt that incurred during his gambling sprees.

No matter how high or low his monetary income is, he has the obligation of paying his obligation on the stipulated date and failure of such would make his personal/real properties liable for the debt.

[Vaskiy]

If the gambler haven't requested for credit and if the gambling agent have given credit, then the mistake is with the gambling agent. He knew well that the gambler have already lost, even after that triggering him to try for some win is kind of trap. Here the gambling agent is wrong, he shouldn't have given credit. What he initially lost is nothing compared to what he lost after receiving funds. If the gambler had been left with the loss from his own money, it couldn't affect him big. Now its a big problem for him.

[Rabata]

If the gambler haven't requested for credit and if the gambling agent have given credit, then the mistake is with the gambling agent. He knew well that the gambler have already lost, even after that triggering him to try for some win is kind of trap. Here the gambling agent is wrong, he shouldn't have given credit. What he initially lost is nothing compared to what he lost after receiving funds. If the gambler had been left with the loss from his own money, it couldn't affect him big. Now its a big problem for him.

Whether or not a gambler asks for money from a gambling agent is not a matter. Because after losing a gambler will want to borrow money to recover his losses. But it must be ascertained whether the gambler can afford to pay the gambling agent otherwise it would be difficult for them to recover the money. Gambling platforms will lose their business with in moment if they issue such loans in the hope of quick profits. A agent should not provide more than 2x money as loan.

[len01]

Whether or not a gambler asks for money from a gambling agent is not a matter. Because after losing a gambler will want to borrow money to recover his losses. But it must be ascertained whether the gambler can afford to pay the gambling agent otherwise it would be difficult for them to recover the money. Gambling platforms will lose their business with in moment if they issue such loans in the hope of quick profits. A agent should not provide more than 2x money as loan.

but I'm sure this gambling agent has a way to charge its customers who already have debts to the gambling agent. like the previous case when a man gambled and made credit to a gambling agent and after that the gambler refused to pay and the gambling agent threatened to tell his family that the person had many debts in gambling so there was no other way but to pay off the debt.

but from the problem that OP wrote, I still think whether this is just a gambling agent's plan to make a profit. and if true, what is the reason for the gambling agent to give credit to that person.
because in my opinion gambling agents at least know the person's occupation and income before giving gambling credit.

[Jody.Drummer]

Maybe they do grant out such giving some credit for someone to play more on just on having the belief that a certain gambler might really be that getting addicted even more and might be using up his entire life
savings on playing gambling and this is why they do grant up some amount of credit on which a certain individual could make use of and this is why it do keep on piling up.Good thing is that they do able to stop
it on certain few folds and not granting thousands of dollars for a certain gambler. We dont know on what are their criterias before you could get such credit but most of the time or simply talking about the standard
operation then it would really be that not so common on granting out these kind of opportunities or features on which you could gamble out on having that credit.
We know that they are running a business on here and it is really just that cant be possible that they would be granting out such request considering that not anyone are capable on repaying them back on time.

Yes, that should be a consideration before they give credit for gambling, considerations such as how much money gamblers make from their work in a day, week or month, so they can know what number if they give credit, a gambler can pay it back.
But the bad thing is in this circle, especially for the gambler, let's say he can afford to pay all his bills that he spends in gambling, but will he be able to meet his daily needs because he will spend most of his income to pay off debts,

If the gambler haven't requested for credit and if the gambling agent have given credit, then the mistake is with the gambling agent. He knew well that the gambler have already lost, even after that triggering him to try for some win is kind of trap. Here the gambling agent is wrong, he shouldn't have given credit. What he initially lost is nothing compared to what he lost after receiving funds. If the gambler had been left with the loss from his own money, it couldn't affect him big. Now its a big problem for him.

Agents will only think about the benefits they will get when gamblers ask them for credit and that has been the goal of the agents from the start, I mean they want to drain even the gambler's savings. But what's wrong is that the agent doesn't see first whether he still has enough money to pay off the credit they give him or not. Maybe what the agent considers here is that the gambler has a job they feel they can afford to pay off all the credit he has.

[borovichok]

Whether or not a gambler asks for money from a gambling agent is not a matter. Because after losing a gambler will want to borrow money to recover his losses. But it must be ascertained whether the gambler can afford to pay the gambling agent otherwise it would be difficult for them to recover the money. Gambling platforms will lose their business with in moment if they issue such loans in the hope of quick profits. A agent should not provide more than 2x money as loan.

We will do anything to take advantage of any little opportunities that emerge; gambling activities do not concern me because I am not a gambler; instead, I am solely focused on bitcoin trading. Unnecessary complications develop on a regular basis in the gaming industry, and we have the stubborn desperate addicted gamblers who are willing to go to great lengths only to put bets on gambling. They have no conscience since they are addicted, and they have a kind of hope that convinces them that whatever game they bet on will undoubtedly result in profits, so they ignore market losses.

[danherbias07]

Whether or not a gambler asks for money from a gambling agent is not a matter. Because after losing a gambler will want to borrow money to recover his losses. But it must be ascertained whether the gambler can afford to pay the gambling agent otherwise it would be difficult for them to recover the money. Gambling platforms will lose their business with in moment if they issue such loans in the hope of quick profits. A agent should not provide more than 2x money as loan.

We will do anything to take advantage of any little opportunities that emerge; gambling activities do not concern me because I am not a gambler; instead, I am solely focused on bitcoin trading. Unnecessary complications develop on a regular basis in the gaming industry, and we have the stubborn desperate addicted gamblers who are willing to go to great lengths only to put bets on gambling. They have no conscience since they are addicted, and they have a kind of hope that convinces them that whatever game they bet on will undoubtedly result in profits, so they ignore market losses.

Yeah, that's the problem when the offer of a loan is just beside you. Even occasional gamblers might take that bait considering they could back whatever money they lose from whatever game it is.
The agent has a lot of mistakes here. First off, why is he there? He is obviously looking for a prey. Why is he monitoring the gambler and he knew exactly when to come in? If he ain't been there, nothing could've happened like a loan or borrowing money that is unsure to be paid. The gambler could've just taken off and called it a day and yet "the offer" came like it was a miracle, like he was an angel sent by god.
That's just too wrong, there's is obviously a purpose, a bad one, an evil intent, and if this goes to investigation they might even try to sue the place of gambling itself, because it looks like it's all scripted.

[ethereumhunter]

If the gambler haven't requested for credit and if the gambling agent have given credit, then the mistake is with the gambling agent. He knew well that the gambler have already lost, even after that triggering him to try for some win is kind of trap. Here the gambling agent is wrong, he shouldn't have given credit. What he initially lost is nothing compared to what he lost after receiving funds. If the gambler had been left with the loss from his own money, it couldn't affect him big. Now its a big problem for him.

Whether or not a gambler asks for money from a gambling agent is not a matter. Because after losing a gambler will want to borrow money to recover his losses. But it must be ascertained whether the gambler can afford to pay the gambling agent otherwise it would be difficult for them to recover the money. Gambling platforms will lose their business with in moment if they issue such loans in the hope of quick profits. A agent should not provide more than 2x money as loan.

Basically, agents may not lend money to gamblers or allow people who don't have money to play gambling at the casino. In addition, even if a casino lends money to a gambler, it must ensure that the gambler returns it on time and check the person's background before handing over the money. And the casino must ask for guarantees from the person as a replacement if that person cannot return the loan. But that was the first story I heard. Maybe there is a casino that lends money to gamblers. But maybe that's normal in offline casinos.

[slapper]

^

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.

Yeah,, indeed dept is a dept, but in this case, I can't go without blaming the betting agent, on no account was he supposed to allow the gambler gamble on credit, knowing the nature of gambling and how humans react to such losses, it is always very much easier for almost every one to pay off a loan borrowed to solve a real life Issue, than pay a loan borrowed to gamble, most especially if the money is lost in the course of gambling, but then, it's easy if the gambler won, atleast from the proceeds of the winning, he can easily settle the loan and keep the profit, but if the money is lost, like in the case where the betting agent allowed the gambler to bet on credit, it takes some one who Is extra ordinarily disciplined to settle such credit, as its almost the same as being forced to give away money to someone when they have not rendered any service to you, or being forced to pay someone even the service the person rendered to you is a very bad one and does not deserve to be paid for.

The ethical concerns of sanctioning credit-based gambling are deeply impacting. This fuels the addiction cycle, escalating the difficulty for individuals to escape their damaging patterns.

The emotional burden of repaying a loan for necessities versus one squandered in gambling is immense. The latter feels like compensating for a 'service' that has been detrimental, amplifying feelings of remorse and desperation.

And yeah, we need more stringent rules to hold gambling institutions accountable and impede destructive tendencies. This entails constraints on credit gambling and proactive actions for sensible gambling, shielding vulnerable individuals from gambling's harmful aftermath.

[Wiwo]

If the gambler haven't requested for credit and if the gambling agent have given credit, then the mistake is with the gambling agent. He knew well that the gambler have already lost, even after that triggering him to try for some win is kind of trap. Here the gambling agent is wrong, he shouldn't have given credit. What he initially lost is nothing compared to what he lost after receiving funds. If the gambler had been left with the loss from his own money, it couldn't affect him big. Now it's a big problem for him.

In all senses of thing,  the gambling agent is at fault because since the gambler is already at a loss why then tempt him to make more bets on credit and this is what motivated the gamblers to have accumulated that amount of debt in the long run, but also we have to blame the gambler too because allowing your urge to recover a lose to take the best part of your reasoning,  it can lead lead to more devastating outcome such as this one.

I believe that by now, both the gambling agent and the gambler would have learned the lessons from the outcome of thos events.

[Mahanton]

Maybe they do grant out such giving some credit for someone to play more on just on having the belief that a certain gambler might really be that getting addicted even more and might be using up his entire life
savings on playing gambling and this is why they do grant up some amount of credit on which a certain individual could make use of and this is why it do keep on piling up.Good thing is that they do able to stop
it on certain few folds and not granting thousands of dollars for a certain gambler. We dont know on what are their criterias before you could get such credit but most of the time or simply talking about the standard
operation then it would really be that not so common on granting out these kind of opportunities or features on which you could gamble out on having that credit.
We know that they are running a business on here and it is really just that cant be possible that they would be granting out such request considering that not anyone are capable on repaying them back on time.

Yes, that should be a consideration before they give credit for gambling, considerations such as how much money gamblers make from their work in a day, week or month, so they can know what number if they give credit, a gambler can pay it back.
But the bad thing is in this circle, especially for the gambler, let's say he can afford to pay all his bills that he spends in gambling, but will he be able to meet his daily needs because he will spend most of his income to pay off debts,

So there would be some negotiations in speaking about adjustments on how those credits should be repaid, he wouldnt be able to pay it all in one go considering that a certain gambler would be having their own expenses
on which it would really be just normal that there would be adjustments but of  course it would only take a few days considering that he is earning 1k on daily basis on local currency. If he had some debt of 8k then it wont really be taking too much time. I was surprised that there are really companies whom do consider on giving out such credit or letting their players play with borrowed money or something like that.
If this one would be coming through a betting agent then for sure it would really be taking up some blame if those obligations had been failed to repay on time.
There's should be no considerations on letting gamblers borrowed funds because this is a business but if this one turns out to be some sort of complimentary? It is really just that much of a favor.

[len01]

If the gambler haven't requested for credit and if the gambling agent have given credit, then the mistake is with the gambling agent. He knew well that the gambler have already lost, even after that triggering him to try for some win is kind of trap. Here the gambling agent is wrong, he shouldn't have given credit. What he initially lost is nothing compared to what he lost after receiving funds. If the gambler had been left with the loss from his own money, it couldn't affect him big. Now it's a big problem for him.

In all senses of thing,  the gambling agent is at fault because since the gambler is already at a loss why then tempt him to make more bets on credit and this is what motivated the gamblers to have accumulated that amount of debt in the long run, but also we have to blame the gambler too because allowing your urge to recover a lose to take the best part of your reasoning,  it can lead lead to more devastating outcome such as this one.

I believe that by now, both the gambling agent and the gambler would have learned the lessons from the outcome of thos events.

say about the error, for me both are wrong. and if say about profit i think both get equal profit.
regarding these errors and advantages, I don't need to explain, for sure we know that gambling agents get long-term benefits from these gamblers and the gamblers themselves benefit from being able to gamble using credit and being able to satisfy their gambling addiction.
but here the bad luck is with the gambler because the gambler's profit ends badly without any victory and has to return the debt that has been obtained from the credit.

and you are telling the truth that from this problem we can get a valuable lesson that the importance of self-control not to be too greedy in gambling or accept any offers from gambling agents.

[Doan9269]

If the gambler haven't requested for credit and if the gambling agent have given credit, then the mistake is with the gambling agent. He knew well that the gambler have already lost, even after that triggering him to try for some win is kind of trap. Here the gambling agent is wrong, he shouldn't have given credit. What he initially lost is nothing compared to what he lost after receiving funds. If the gambler had been left with the loss from his own money, it couldn't affect him big. Now its a big problem for him.

Whether or not a gambler asks for money from a gambling agent is not a matter. Because after losing a gambler will want to borrow money to recover his losses. But it must be ascertained whether the gambler can afford to pay the gambling agent otherwise it would be difficult for them to recover the money. Gambling platforms will lose their business with in moment if they issue such loans in the hope of quick profits. A agent should not provide more than 2x money as loan.

Basically, agents may not lend money to gamblers or allow people who don't have money to play gambling at the casino. In addition, even if a casino lends money to a gambler, it must ensure that the gambler returns it on time and check the person's background before handing over the money. And the casino must ask for guarantees from the person as a replacement if that person cannot return the loan. But that was the first story I heard. Maybe there is a casino that lends money to gamblers. But maybe that's normal in offline casinos.

There's a way we could get more familiar with each other to the extent of taking the risk to neglect the normal procedure or protocols that guide or restricts us from doing some certain things but due to our relationship and rapport level we have over each other, we try to on our own way bend some rules and protocols to make things work for us as to achieving our personal desires, the agent in this has done what even his blood siblings couldn't have done but he eventually proof him wrong as against next time because the gambler is not faithful enough.

[Hypnosis00]

If the gambler haven't requested for credit and if the gambling agent have given credit, then the mistake is with the gambling agent. He knew well that the gambler have already lost, even after that triggering him to try for some win is kind of trap. Here the gambling agent is wrong, he shouldn't have given credit. What he initially lost is nothing compared to what he lost after receiving funds. If the gambler had been left with the loss from his own money, it couldn't affect him big. Now its a big problem for him.

Whether or not a gambler asks for money from a gambling agent is not a matter. Because after losing a gambler will want to borrow money to recover his losses. But it must be ascertained whether the gambler can afford to pay the gambling agent otherwise it would be difficult for them to recover the money. Gambling platforms will lose their business with in moment if they issue such loans in the hope of quick profits. A agent should not provide more than 2x money as loan.

As I put my shoe on the gambling agent, I will hunt this gambler as well and ask for payment. Because in the first place, I don't push that worker to gamble but what he did is too much and getting out of control from his addiction. A settlement like an installment kind of payment is probably will work. But to ask whom to blame in this case, nothing but this worker. Because if he was able to control himself and just gamble the amount he have in his pocket, this never get worse but he choice to do that and the results are terrible.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

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?

    -  It seems like it's the agent's fault, because he knows that he only has 1000 and then he allowed him to owe him 8000. The agent immediately blundered. The question is why is it allowed? because this is a regular customer and he thought that he would not be cheated so he trusted?

If it were me, I would not allow that, we know that many people are blinded by money, and do bad things because of money. So the agent is really lacking.

[fullhdpixel]

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.

What about working on a job other than loaning money? I guess that seems a better solution. Even if it takes time for the agent to get all his money, at least he was being paid small from time to time. That must be better than not paying at all.

Indeed, gambling is not for everyone, not only because some people have a psychological problem and can easily get hooked on it or they can't accept their defeat easily but there are also people who are not on the legal age yet. I wouldn't put all the blame to the gambler but also to the agent because he let the gambler play on credit. It's a lesson for him to not allow such act anymore but if he still wants to then he can follow your advice there.

[Fesatmas]

Indeed, gambling is not for everyone, not only because some people have a psychological problem and can easily get hooked on it or they can't accept their defeat easily but there are also people who are not on the legal age yet. I wouldn't put all the blame to the gambler but also to the agent because he let the gambler play on credit. It's a lesson for him to not allow such act anymore but if he still wants to then he can follow your advice there.

Indeed, basically gambling only applies to those who are over 20 years of age and who have a more mature mindset. But on the other hand, environmental and social factors will greatly impact a person. It cannot be denied that those who are underage can get involved in gambling. In my opinion, we cannot fully blame agents because there are lots of gambling sites, not just offline ones. but many are also online such as slot machines. In the process, there is no difference between the two, especially for slot games where everyone can do it anytime and anywhere. So I mean how can an agency prevent someone who is underage from gambling if the agency doesn't have regulations to prohibit that that is beyond them? What I mean is about online gambling such as slots where everyone can enter it anytime, anywhere, and don't care about people who are underage. In the end, I think most of the blame is on the gambler.

[Beparanf]

and you are telling the truth that from this problem we can get a valuable lesson that the importance of self-control not to be too greedy in gambling or accept any offers from gambling agents.

Aside from self control which we already knew on gambling do’s. The agent’s greediness on feeding more credit to a players that losing more money is the moral of the story. He gets what he deserves because he is taking advantage on someone addiction for a profit from credit. I think this credits has an interest and the agent probably knew that players has a stable source of income since he is already a regular.