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. 
Topic: Who is to be blamed, the gambler or the betting agent - page 11. (Read 1785 times)
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
legendary
Activity: 2254
Merit: 1052
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
^
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.
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.
^
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.What is the possibility of the betting agent getting his money soon/considering the gambler's low-income earnings?
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.
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.
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.What is the possibility of the betting agent getting his money soon/considering the gambler's low-income earnings?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
Jump to: