Topic: Who is to be blamed, the gambler or the betting agent - page 10. (Read 1947 times)

The gambler priority was only to avenge his losses earlier, afterall he recorded gigantic losses, in my opinion the betting agent has no idea although he made faults because he knows the risks involved in gambling and still supports someone to gamble after witnessing the gambler losing steadily. They're both at fault, before gambling, atleast know the amount of losses you can take in and never to be too desperate to bet on games, do take time and mapped our good strategy, and if it doesn't go as plan, leave it, tomorrow is another opportunity to try again.

From what I understand, the agent didn't gave 8k at one go but he gave small amounts first. The agent didn't hope for the bettor to win but what he only want is for the customer to pay on the designated dates. I don't think the gambler don't consider the risk of losing because he just lost earlier but indeed he was greedy. At that time, he is only thinking for a revenge but unfortunately, it didn't end up well.

The agent is only doing a business here or a kind of side job by letting the customers take a loan and the bettor in the story is only just a victim. None of them can be blamed but it would be inappropriate if the gambler will ran away for his obligations.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

---

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 it's a big problem for him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.