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.
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.
This case you've outlined indeed highlights pressing ethical, legal, and socio-economic questions. The betting agent, capitalizing on the gambler's weakness with full awareness, dismisses moral considerations – a reprehensible act of exploiting vulnerability for personal gain. Yet, as you astutely acknowledged, laws don't always parallel moral guidelines.
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.