Topic: Who is to be blamed, the gambler or the betting agent - page 7. (Read 1780 times)

online casinos will never provide loan facilities to their customers because that will be very risky because so many customers come from countries that prohibit gambling, so even if they provide credit card guarantees or KYC it is very risky for online casinos.
it's different from land-based casinos, in that the country or city certainly allows the gambling business, so it's only natural that land-based casinos provide loans to their customers. and I'm not sure if gamblers would avoid the casino if offered a betting loan because we know that not all gamblers are sane minds but many gamblers will accept such an offer.

While this is common I still think this is wrong, I mean look at online casinos, they do not give loans to their customers and yet they are a thriving industry and it would not surprise me if they were generating now more profits than land based casinos, so trying to take advantage of gamblers in this way by giving them loans may work for a time and increase the profits of that casino, but I am sure there are many gamblers out there that if they found out this information they will decide to stop gambling at that casino out of fear this could happen to them.

The betting agent tries to take advantage of his customer because the more he spends, the more profit he will get from the customer, the betting agent has crossed the limits of what he should have done and now he accepts his greedy attitude. Because as a betting agent, he understand the risks of gambling and coupled with the risk of providing loans, which also have a risk where the debtor cannot repay the loan, and it could be that the betting agent is used to doing this, only this time he is dealing with a customer who turns out to have no financial ability and in the end he will lose his money. Important lesson not to take advantage of people for self-interest because the results can actually be detrimental to oneself

I am a bit surprised that the gambler got a loan for 8x for the 1,000 he came with. In case the betting agent know the gambler well than the loan shouldn't be an issue, but also the gambler shouldn't have run away after losing all his money. And if they don't know each other than he should never give a loan to a stranger. The situation could have easily been avoided and given that it's only small amounts I think that it's going to be resolved. Why are you saying low-income earnings? It only takes the gambler 4 days of work to pay off his debt, that is not a lot. In my country people have to work month and years to pay of loans. I find it a bit strange that the gambler would run away for such a small amount. Would you really give up your job forever or work 4 days to pay your debt? In less than a week he would be debt free and now he lost his job. Also, the world is a small place and people meet each other at the most random locations again. Let's say the gambler needs a few weeks to find a job and then randomly the betting agent finds him again. In the end he still has to pay back his loan and lost a few weeks of salary for running away. It might take some time but the betting agent will get his money back in the end.

Though I agree with what you say that a person is responsible for what he does, you are totally not getting the point here. The person among gambler and the betting agent who was in trouble in this case was the betting agent because the gambler went to his shop for gambling, and lost everything he had, the betting agent then offered him to gamble with credit and pay back later, and the gambler accepted the offer and lost the credits too but then disappeared.

After some days, the betting agent found the gambler working somewhere and started arguing about the money that he has to pay back for gambling with credits, the gambler said he doesn't have money to pay back, so things sorted out when the person the gambler was working for said he will pay you back with whatever he earns from the work.

In all this, I only find the betting agent to be the one whose mistake this all was, he shouldn't have offered the gambler credits when he saw he lost everything he had already.

It seems that both of them have lost in this part and it didn't benefitted anybody because the agent already made a mistake by letting the man have 8,000 coins when in-fact he already have 1,000 at that moment but since the agent have known the man and the OP also stated that he's been a regular gambler to their shop, the agent allowed it because by then, they know where it work or what does it do. Furthermore, the debt will not last more than 1 week because it has been said that the man has a daily pay of 2,000.

As long as there's agreement in between parties (which it is the standard) then that certain gambler would really be having that kind of possibility on facing up some possible charges but of course it would really be that effective if a such information is been known which its impossible that the house itself who grant such credit would able to do so. You are the ones who do take up some loan or credit then as a gambler then you are really that liable on such thing or you would really be needing to pay it up on a certain time. Good thing that the house or company was able to assess
about on giving out such limit on something that a certain gambler would really be able to pay.If not then they would really be definitely be having that kind of problem
on which they would really be considered as losses if ever a certain gambler couldnt be able to pay.

Judging by the fact that that agent himself came to the debtor to work, this is not the policy of the casino, but his personal mistake. However, from the original message, you might think that this agent is the owner of the casino, so it's hard for me to judge. In any case, it appears that the player has legal grounds for not repaying this debt.

It's okay if the person borrows money from the bank or a friend because it has nothing to do with the casino so if the person loses, they have to leave the casino immediately. Casinos also do not need to lend money to that person to avoid other cases that could arise. And that person who has to deal with the bank or his friend, because he borrowed the money is left.

Casinos don't want to take the risk if gamblers can't repay their loan money so they better not allow people who don't have enough money to gamble. This is also to maintain the reputation of the casino.

Indeed, casinos should not lend money to gamblers because surely many cannot return the money. It's better for the casino to act decisively to avoid trouble that may have no end so that the casino can run its business without dealing with people like that.

If the casino provides a loan feature, it is not easy to verify because the casino must check it first before giving the money. And it will take time, while gamblers really want to play gambling so they definitely won't be patient to ask for the money.

They will only experience difficulties if they keep forcing themselves to be able to have money to use for gambling. They may know it will be bad for them if they keep gambling, but that still doesn't stop them from borrowing money from people around them and maybe even borrowing from moneylenders. Only wise gamblers will not force themselves to continue gambling when they have no money and will choose to take a break first.

And when it comes to friends, the worker should be able to stand firm and say that the company can't lend the gambler any money. Maybe the worker could lend him the money if they knew the gambler but still, it was risky for the worker. Many possibilities occur where gamblers can have money to gamble and find many ways to have money. So casinos only need to prohibit gamblers who don't have money to gamble at their place and advise them to look for money elsewhere and only after they have money can they return to the casino to gamble.

I support you that the person who took the loan is liable. Moreover, according to his age, he is mature if he is 18. Therefore, his default can be considered as a crime. But here I have a complaint that if a gambler has become addicted then any gambling agent should not lend him as much as he likes. Here a gambler may lose his common sense due to addiction but the gambling agent must keep an eye on him. Moreover, they should not give additional loans. But if it is a case that the gambler has already taken a big loan previous time and paid that then the gambling agent cannot be blamed. According to the law, the borrower is the main culprit. But gambling agents should also be careful. If they cannot withdraw the loan money, their business will also suffer.

Whatever the reason, it is the player's fault, the things that a person has to require when entering a casino is that they be of legal Age , if they do not meet that requirement they will not enter, and precisely the requirement is because they are considered to be A person is 18 years old , and is mature enough to assume their actions , whether good or bad, things are like that, and if a person decided to give them the loan, or the city did not trust to give them the loan, it was because they saw that they had the capacity to Payment , if you lost or won that does not matter to the one who made the loan, the one who made the loan is only interested in your interest and that they Give you your money.

The player begins to try himself in gambling, because he wants to make money on it, this is an understandable truth. But over time, he realizes that he will not be able to do this, for various reasons. It seems to me that every player who understands this should just stop, if this does not happen, then problems may most likely begin, but often it will be a game for little money. It is difficult to blame the bookmaker, for him this is a business on which he earns, it seems to me that here the responsibility lies entirely with the player.

I guess that the agent has been doing this stuff for a long time now and sounds like that he also managed to have his cut without any problems even though the bettors whom he lend the money lose the bet. But now, it is a very different case because the man cannot afford to give the money back as he might not have that much and just barely survived in every day life. Now, it has come to an end because the agent met the man that cannot afford anything and now he's having this kind of stuff.

They actually do have a strong rule on the workers not to allow bettors to bet on credit but what happens sometimes is that because a particular bettor is a friend or became close to the game house, one of the workers may fall soft for the bettor especially opposite sex. You know how the opposite attracts, and after sometime, the credit betting can start happening with repayment from time to time but it never last longer before such arrangement is unearthed and when this is noticed the worker will face losing the job or pay the debt .

This is reality as we all know that everyone of us here in the forum once we talk about gambling then we will already know that there are many gamblers who see addicted to much which means even though they don't have enough money to gamble with then they will go to the casino and ask for playing.  Or else they will make a way how to have Money on hand and some of them are borrowing from their friends or from their company.

Very much agree with this.


It's just a matter of discerning. If a person do not have enough funds in the very beginning and there's no gamble now, pay later feature in the casino, then the person shouldn't be allowed to gamble in the first place because what will he used to stake and make a bet right. There will be none that he can use to play for the games in that casino. Hence, he must be given a heads up that money's a requirement in order to make a bet or play if ever he is not aware of it. The casino shouldn't also tolerate this since gamblers must practice discipline and in order to maintain the peace inside the casino, they have to prevent trouble from happening, which in this case might come out if the person insist to play without money.

But if there's a loan feature, then it must be ensured that the player has the capacity to pay the loans he will take regardless the outcome of his bets and plays. The amount of money must be in proportion to the capacity of paying. Proper documents for verification should be asked and it must be screened thoroughly to be guaranteed theres no fake document and that they will be paid or they can have the collateral if things don't really go well.

After the security kick the people who don't have the money to gamble, those people can just ask a loan from bank, friend or their relatives in order to gambler. This make the security wouldn't know how they can get the money and they will let them to gamble.

There's no casino will allow their gambler to gamble with casino's money because it will cause a problem where the gambler not want to pay when they're losses. A casino have many risks, they wouldn't want to increase their risk.

But the casino certainly won't allow someone who doesn't have enough money to gamble because the casino knows that that person has a big chance of losing compared to winning. So the casino might be able to ask for evidence from the gambler stating that the gambler really has the money, and then the casino will allow him to play gambling. And if you don't have one, the casino won't allow you to gamble, let alone place big bets. But if the casino has a feature of providing loans to gamblers, the casino must also make sure that the guarantee from the gambler is commensurate with the money to be borrowed. And if the gambler cannot repay the loan, the casino can take over the collateral.

it's also not as easy as you might imagine even though it can happen in offline casinos but only certain people can get betting credit as we discuss here. like people who have been customers at offline casinos for years, sometimes they won't be given such facilities because almost all casinos will always think about profits, but not all of them dare to take the risk of giving credit bets to their customers because it will be very risky if one day this happens. such a problem and the gambler either runs away or commits suicide. so this risk is very bad because if it is investigated the casino will also be in trouble by law.