Topic: Who is to be blamed, the gambler or the betting agent - page 12. (Read 1947 times)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

^ 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.