Topic: Who is to be blamed, the gambler or the betting agent - page 6. (Read 1780 times)

Even if quitting is difficult, they should still try. It would be better for them than taking a big risk that they couldn't take. Both of them have made a mistake and had a problem, which should be resolved amicably. Between the person who borrowed and the person who lent the money, they can discuss how the borrower can return the money. And the lender should be able to provide enough time for the borrower to return the money. The person who borrowed it could return the money by returning it little by little.

Well, where I have entered there is no option of casinos that can give loans to their clients, even though they are the most recognized clients, besides, that thing about loans seems to me to be something bad for clients, very good business for casinos, but bad for people, so in that sense, i would say that an online casino should not make or risk with loans, the loan part for a casino player is also not good, because his life starts to be full of additional Problems if he gets the loan and then loses everything Sometimes it's better to say no before the world collapses on you.

In these cases, I don't know if any type of VIP client can access a benefit like this, I know that some casinos give credit to players, but of course they are prominent players who always go to the casinos to leave a good slice of their money, and this is They have very well studied, at least the traditional casinos that I know do, where I live there is only 1 traditional casino, but it is something that many people frequent, especially on weekends, I hope that another casino opens that is like a Bingo, but it has everything from slot machines to the most luxurious and beautiful roulette wheels, everything for entertainment, this is how I have seen some people get into debt, when a casino gives credit to a customer, it is like giving money, only in a different way. directly, but on occasions I have seen that the ones who give credit the most are older people, older adults who sit almost all day and night giving it, I really admire them a lot.

Agreed, quitting is not an easy thing. Whether it is gambling or something else. The owner shouldn't have given money, just because he gave money the victim continued spending. If not, he could've left with what he had lost from his pocket. The trouble maker is the casino owner who knows well about the reality of gambling that it is not easy to recover the losses.

It is a debatable situation, why the casino agent has such an opportunity to give loans to gamblers on a physical gambling place.
If he loans, it means management and awareness of gambling problems are not the case there.
Quitting has never been easy, so it is understandable why the "victim" will continue to play even if someone pays his loan back, IMHO.

Even though the online casino has the KYC of the users, yet it is very easy for scammers to create an account, do the KYC, and apply for a loan.
Some can say that casinos can safeguard the return of the loans by not allowing the withdrawal until the loan is cleared. How about anyone getting the loan, losing all in the gambling, and quitting the site forever without returning the loan?


In physical casinos, it is easier to recover the loans, but it is worth it for the gambling casino to give the loan service and face all these hassles from the gamblers not returning or delaying the return of loans, as they will usually lose all the loan money in the gambling.

Most and many of them in such cases are all olan work, because in the cost of my further investigation on the matter, i fund out that, this is not the first time this incident and the agent have been fun of doing this for his loyal players, but you know gamblers cant be trusted and at that he ended up disappointing the casino agent this time.

I wont suspect that ghe vambler vs the agent have an agreement to split the profits if there is a winning,  but then also if he did then that will be against the entics of his business since that will open door for more of such demands and this will ultimately collapse tge business on the long run.

This one is simple to answer; the gambling agent could be in the wrong as the service provided isn't the type that is run on credit!

But in certain instances players could be allowed to play on credit because of their gaming history and they know the players usual threshold and potential before they call it a day!

If this isn't the case, the only reason player was allowed to play the extra rounds is because the agent might have connived with the player in return to split the profits but unfortunately game didn't go as planned and now the agents job is on the line.

Otherwise in all scenarios, agent is still the culprit here!!

It has a good benefits as well, when a person aren't able to pay casino will get their collateral. Traditional casinos has this kind of thing, it is better of the collateral of that person is a house, land or anything that will not depreciate the value over time or maybe luxury items such as high brand models of bags and cars. But in an online one , I never heard any online casino that offers this kind of thing , it is because it is only and assurance is not reliable.

While the player is the sole responsible of this as they are the only ones which can take financial decisions on their name, I also argue casinos should have no business issuing loans to their clients, now this would be a different story if the gambler in their irresponsibility used their credit card to go an ATM and withdrew some cash from their account, as in that case neither the bank or the casino know the purpose of the withdrawal or the source of those funds respectively.

Why is it the responsibility of the agent to manage a gambler's finances? If a bet is made on credit, who's to say that gambler doesn't have future capabilities of paying back the bet if he loses even if he doesn't have the funds to cover the wager immediately? Gamblers are responsible for their own wagers, period.

I'm rather shocked at how many people think it's the agent's fault. You could argue it's immoral/unethical for agent/casinos to offer credit lines, fine. That doesn't make them at fault for issuing credit to a gambler who accepted credits on their own accord.

Of course, this is the responsibility of the player, if the player allowed a situation where he lost everything and he needs a loan to continue playing, then you just need to think and soberly assess the situation. If he has lost everything up to this point, then most likely he will also lose the loan money, and the responsibility will be only on him. It seems to me that the casino simply will not issue a loan to the player, first they need to make sure of his solvency.

It's not good business for casinos if they provide loans to gamblers who often lose or don't have the money to gamble. And if those gamblers didn't have any collateral the casinos could hold, the casinos wouldn't be able to get their money back because those people would run away after gambling and not come back for a while. The casino business cannot grow and can suffer losses in the long term. And we can say that this was due to the betting agent's mistake because the betting agent dared to provide loans to gamblers without checking the background of the gamblers and without collateral.

This only happens in the offline and physical casinos where the agents can trap the gamblers and force them to gamble even if they do not have the money. In online gambling, we usually do not face such a situation. An online gambling site won't give loans to their gamblers. Yeah, they sometimes may give us extra money in terms of deposit bonuses, etc but we can't withdraw that amount because of the high wagering requirement associated with those promotions. (95% of the people will bust their balances in order to complete the wagering requirements).

Not wrong but it's risky on the side of the casino owner. What if the gambler won't pay and won't come back again on the casino? Gambling plus loaning is something that won't fit. It's a bad idea. For loans, there is already a separate company for that. They have special conditions to make sure that they won't lose big in the long run.

The cheap internet, gadgets which has the ability to connect to the internet and covid has made people more exposed online or to online casinos. No wonder why they are growing and seems to surpass the land-based casinos. When a gambler found out that a casino offer loans, the more they will play on there. It's the casino is the one who will experience a fear. 

Bitgolden explained the point... Our actions and words have consequences! We all learn that sooner or later, in the easy or the hard way.

Hardcore addicts start by lying to their closest ones, then they start lying to everyone. That can work for some time, but it can't work all the time. With some people, you simply don't fuck around! And when someone allows himself to get in this kind of situation and decides to "sell his soul to the devil", even if it was only verbally, there is no going back after that. Just another man falling into the Devil's trap... I am not a believer, this is just a good metaphor in my opinion.

There is no room for debt in online business and that is the advantage because there is no personal relationship interphase. The casino don't give out credit only bonus for playing with them. There is no credit facility allowed but because there is physical relation in offline casino, things like that are possible.


Does this not buttress the point that the house win more than the bettor? The agents that is loaning out the money knows the gambler was going to lose again and again which was the reason to give out the money. Otherwise how would you loan money to someone who wants to "fight " against you and to win against you ? Or if you are not sure the money you loan won't come back to you as profit .

I believe that's still gamblers fault, why gamble with the money you do not have? I mean you are not a little child to be pressured into gambling with no money, if you do not have it then do not gamble with it, that's such a simple thing and trying to be cheeky about gambling with what you do not have in case you could win is not a solution. Do not blame the agent for trying to collect what the gambler owes, it's his fault and he should be paying it and if he doesn't have the money for it then he should sell some of his stuff to pay so he would learn a big lesson.

There is absolutely no excuse for gambling like that, you can't just put the blame on anyone else than the gambler for making such a huge mistake and it was a mistake from the start.

Yes, I also wrote about the fact that the debt is insignificant relative to the income of this gambler. But this is subject to the fact that he decides to return this debt. In fact, I highly doubt that agent has any legal means to get him to do this. Here everything goes into the topic of personal human relations, since from a legal point of view, this debt seems to me to be unfounded.

The betting agent may offer the gambler credit, but the betting agent must be able to find out what the gambler has so that if the gambler loses the bet, the gambler can return the money he borrowed. In traditional casinos, betting agents sometimes ask for guarantees and I have even heard of gamblers who guarantee things in their house to get money to gamble. The betting agent will be happy to hear this because the goods offered by gamblers are often in the form of goods that other people rarely own so the betting agent immediately gives the money. This may be the fault of the betting agent so he can't get the money anymore and can only wait for the gambler to have the money to be able to pay it again.

In the case described in OP, the gambling agent was still able to find the gambler despite the gambler trying to evade the debt. If this were to be online casino, how and where will they find a gambler who they granted loan to. The money is lost for ever.

In general, I don't think offline casinos giving their customers loan to gamble is ethical. They are just increasing the gamblers debt and risk of being addicted. That act should be prohibited.