THE BLACK HAND FORUM

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 3:37 pm

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:51 pm In his book, Gambino associate Andrew DiDonato (who was around the Corozzo/DiMaria crew) said the mob usually works with guys that owe because getting heavy over a debt usually meant losing a customer that you knew would have money again and find somewhere else to bet. Of course, if a player ran away with a big tab, they would track him down because he's robbing them at that point.

Now I'm even more confused.

Do you have an excerpt? How does that even work if you're not charging vig on the outstanding debt? A guy owes $10k (for example) and the bookie still takes his action for next week's game?

These are gamblers we're talking about. I may not know much about how the mob works but I know how gamblers work. If a guy is betting while he already owes money, it's statistically unlikely that he'll win back his earlier debt and his current one to make it square and even for the bookie. Unless he's going to re-mortgage his house or sell his car.

Pmac2 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2024 4:06 am IMO the bloods gang in new York is pretty organized. I feel like once a gang been around 30yrs it's organized itself. no pull in the unions but just look at how the mafia in NYC works with them on street shit in the last decade. now the leaders in the bloods are 50+

Ivan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 8:33 pm

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 5:28 am They've been doing it for a long time. It's a trade off, i.e. avoiding law enforcement scrutiny with less violence but also garnering less fear on the street. It's not that the mob isn't still capable of using violence on a limited, restricted basis but the days of it dropping bodies like it did in the 1970s and 1980s are obviously long gone.

Sure, but they still killed people somewhat often in the 2000s (admittedly much less than before) and there were admin-sanctioned hits up until Meldish so the current non-murderous dispensation has only been going on for a decade or so really. The fact that they are still taken as seriously they apparently still are might just be inertia. Wouldn't be shocked if after at some point, say in a decade or so, the combination of their coming demographic winter and the rarity of serious violence on their part turns them into a joke among up and coming young criminals. Who in 2035 is going to be scared of "gangsters" who have an average age of like 65 and never kill anyone?

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 5:28 am They've been doing it for a long time. It's a trade off, i.e. avoiding law enforcement scrutiny with less violence but also garnering less fear on the street. It's not that the mob isn't still capable of using violence on a limited, restricted basis but the days of it dropping bodies like it did in the 1970s and 1980s are obviously long gone.

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 2:51 pm In his book, Gambino associate Andrew DiDonato (who was around the Corozzo/DiMaria crew) said the mob usually works with guys that owe because getting heavy over a debt usually meant losing a customer that you knew would have money again and find somewhere else to bet. Of course, if a player ran away with a big tab, they would track him down because he's robbing them at that point.

Stroccos wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 12:50 pm

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 2:43 pm

Stroccos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 8:47 am

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:45 am

Stroccos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:17 am

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:45 pm

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:08 pm
But that then brings up another point that I think Cheech or someone brought up before (and gohn too in a way above) where, if the bookie is using money from the losing players to pay off the winners, while keeping the vig, that doesn't serve the bookie well to have to go into his own pocket to pay his winners while playing loan collector with his losers.

Exactly, it seems like a few deadbeat customers could really throw off the profit margins of a smaller book. And in cases like these, where the defendants simultaneously run an illegal loansharking business that ostensibly utilizes extortion, why wouldn't that apply to their bookmaking enterprise too?

I don't know... This is maybe a bad example but it's like if a violent drug dealer gets ripped off by a customer, i.e. he gives the person drugs on consignment to sell & never receives the money, is he going to say "That's okay, only pay me half the debt, I value your business." No, he's going to use extortionate measures to collect his money and the guy will probably remain a customer afterwards anyways. I understand the majority of bookmakers aren't also extortionate, but when the Mafia is so heavily involved, such as this indictment, in seems like it goes without saying. I mean, we've seen plenty of instances where deadbeat gamblers are roughed up, etc., and have to appeal to a Mafia figure from a rival family to represent them in the sitdown. Then, you get the knockdown payments that Cheech mentions, but it seems there's a few extra steps before you can simply tell your bookie "Sorry bud, I'm only paying half of that $3,000 bet I placed with you."

once it becomes obv the guy cant or wont pay maybe you propose a settlement , willing to be pay but cant is allot different then outright refusing to pay ,
its not like you just offering settlements to every guy who loses that week

It also would have to do with the bookmaking outfit's ability to extort, right? Not every operation or customer is made equally, which is why we've seen so many cases of deadbeat gamblers being beaten or threatened, while others are able to negotiate knockdown debts instead. The two arguments of "you can't strongarm a deadbeat because he'll go to the cops" and "you can't strongarm a deadbeat because he'll simply take his business elsewhere" ignores the entire point of the Mafia's ability to extort, in my opinion. I guess that's why it's important to separate regular, low-level bookmakers and runners from the operations that are run top-down by the Mafia.

But I understand that extortionate cases like I've mentioned are exceptions to the rule, as Cheech has explained. I can see why it would typically be more prudent to use extortion as a last resort.

even mob guys get beat of money , look at the genovese guy who went to prison for love taping that guy in a restaurant , the debtor had zero fear of a the mob( maybe he did as he dropped the charges and paid the debt but he did testify against them )

as he went to the cops after being assaulted but later dropped the charges , so I guess being assaulted they end up paying the money back to avoid any more troubles

Good post Stroccos, I remember reading about that. Tell me if you disagree, but it seems the Mob - when it comes to things like bookmaking, loansharking - they prey on the idea of violence, the scent of it, while often being incredibly reluctant or unable to enforce it. The Thomas Scorscia case is the same thing; a lot of threats, a lot of sitting outside a restaurant and taking a photo of the debtor's car while they eat, but not much else aside from extreme circumstances.

And yeah, I guess when it comes to settlements, you can't draw blood from a stone. I think I understand that a bit better now, there's no point exposing yourself to prosecution for violence/extortion if you genuinely don't think the client can pay the money.

Yeah the threat of violence it’s all about psychology, Making someoene think you may do something ,
Also think about this when the guy says you don’t have the balls, If that guy doesn’t slug him at point, more then likely the guy will not take there threats serious anymore

What I found interesting was that the guy that got hit vouch for the guy that owed 6K so he was willing to pay the 6K but not the 80 K. So it sounds like to me the guy vouched for the one guy but not the other, That was kind of an old gambling rule if you referred someone and they were no good you’d be on the hook, so the dude owed them 6k imo
Hard to enforce it though


As far as settlements another thing About this case the gentleman who owed 80,000 had just won’t money from them , so in this case you might not want to do a settlement because the guy was up on you,

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 2:43 pm

Stroccos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 8:47 am

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:45 am

Stroccos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:17 am

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:45 pm

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:08 pm
But that then brings up another point that I think Cheech or someone brought up before (and gohn too in a way above) where, if the bookie is using money from the losing players to pay off the winners, while keeping the vig, that doesn't serve the bookie well to have to go into his own pocket to pay his winners while playing loan collector with his losers.

Exactly, it seems like a few deadbeat customers could really throw off the profit margins of a smaller book. And in cases like these, where the defendants simultaneously run an illegal loansharking business that ostensibly utilizes extortion, why wouldn't that apply to their bookmaking enterprise too?

I don't know... This is maybe a bad example but it's like if a violent drug dealer gets ripped off by a customer, i.e. he gives the person drugs on consignment to sell & never receives the money, is he going to say "That's okay, only pay me half the debt, I value your business." No, he's going to use extortionate measures to collect his money and the guy will probably remain a customer afterwards anyways. I understand the majority of bookmakers aren't also extortionate, but when the Mafia is so heavily involved, such as this indictment, in seems like it goes without saying. I mean, we've seen plenty of instances where deadbeat gamblers are roughed up, etc., and have to appeal to a Mafia figure from a rival family to represent them in the sitdown. Then, you get the knockdown payments that Cheech mentions, but it seems there's a few extra steps before you can simply tell your bookie "Sorry bud, I'm only paying half of that $3,000 bet I placed with you."

once it becomes obv the guy cant or wont pay maybe you propose a settlement , willing to be pay but cant is allot different then outright refusing to pay ,
its not like you just offering settlements to every guy who loses that week

It also would have to do with the bookmaking outfit's ability to extort, right? Not every operation or customer is made equally, which is why we've seen so many cases of deadbeat gamblers being beaten or threatened, while others are able to negotiate knockdown debts instead. The two arguments of "you can't strongarm a deadbeat because he'll go to the cops" and "you can't strongarm a deadbeat because he'll simply take his business elsewhere" ignores the entire point of the Mafia's ability to extort, in my opinion. I guess that's why it's important to separate regular, low-level bookmakers and runners from the operations that are run top-down by the Mafia.

But I understand that extortionate cases like I've mentioned are exceptions to the rule, as Cheech has explained. I can see why it would typically be more prudent to use extortion as a last resort.

even mob guys get beat of money , look at the genovese guy who went to prison for love taping that guy in a restaurant , the debtor had zero fear of a the mob( maybe he did as he dropped the charges and paid the debt but he did testify against them )

as he went to the cops after being assaulted but later dropped the charges , so I guess being assaulted they end up paying the money back to avoid any more troubles

Good post Stroccos, I remember reading about that. Tell me if you disagree, but it seems the Mob - when it comes to things like bookmaking, loansharking - they prey on the idea of violence, the scent of it, while often being incredibly reluctant or unable to enforce it. The Thomas Scorscia case is the same thing; a lot of threats, a lot of sitting outside a restaurant and taking a photo of the debtor's car while they eat, but not much else aside from extreme circumstances.

And yeah, I guess when it comes to settlements, you can't draw blood from a stone. I think I understand that a bit better now, there's no point exposing yourself to prosecution for violence/extortion if you genuinely don't think the client can pay the money.

Ivan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 8:01 pm

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 2:43 pm Good post Stroccos, I remember reading about that. Tell me if you disagree, but it seems the Mob - when it comes to things like bookmaking, loansharking - they prey on the idea of violence, the scent of it, while often being incredibly reluctant or unable to enforce it.

You have to wonder how long they could get away with just kind of coasting on their past reputation of violence without losing credibility though.

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 2:43 pm Good post Stroccos, I remember reading about that. Tell me if you disagree, but it seems the Mob - when it comes to things like bookmaking, loansharking - they prey on the idea of violence, the scent of it, while often being incredibly reluctant or unable to enforce it.

Stroccos wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 8:47 am

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:45 am

Stroccos wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 9:17 am

gohnjotti wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:45 pm

Wiseguy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2024 8:08 pm
But that then brings up another point that I think Cheech or someone brought up before (and gohn too in a way above) where, if the bookie is using money from the losing players to pay off the winners, while keeping the vig, that doesn't serve the bookie well to have to go into his own pocket to pay his winners while playing loan collector with his losers.

Exactly, it seems like a few deadbeat customers could really throw off the profit margins of a smaller book. And in cases like these, where the defendants simultaneously run an illegal loansharking business that ostensibly utilizes extortion, why wouldn't that apply to their bookmaking enterprise too?

I don't know... This is maybe a bad example but it's like if a violent drug dealer gets ripped off by a customer, i.e. he gives the person drugs on consignment to sell & never receives the money, is he going to say "That's okay, only pay me half the debt, I value your business." No, he's going to use extortionate measures to collect his money and the guy will probably remain a customer afterwards anyways. I understand the majority of bookmakers aren't also extortionate, but when the Mafia is so heavily involved, such as this indictment, in seems like it goes without saying. I mean, we've seen plenty of instances where deadbeat gamblers are roughed up, etc., and have to appeal to a Mafia figure from a rival family to represent them in the sitdown. Then, you get the knockdown payments that Cheech mentions, but it seems there's a few extra steps before you can simply tell your bookie "Sorry bud, I'm only paying half of that $3,000 bet I placed with you."

once it becomes obv the guy cant or wont pay maybe you propose a settlement , willing to be pay but cant is allot different then outright refusing to pay ,
its not like you just offering settlements to every guy who loses that week

It also would have to do with the bookmaking outfit's ability to extort, right? Not every operation or customer is made equally, which is why we've seen so many cases of deadbeat gamblers being beaten or threatened, while others are able to negotiate knockdown debts instead. The two arguments of "you can't strongarm a deadbeat because he'll go to the cops" and "you can't strongarm a deadbeat because he'll simply take his business elsewhere" ignores the entire point of the Mafia's ability to extort, in my opinion. I guess that's why it's important to separate regular, low-level bookmakers and runners from the operations that are run top-down by the Mafia.

But I understand that extortionate cases like I've mentioned are exceptions to the rule, as Cheech has explained. I can see why it would typically be more prudent to use extortion as a last resort.

even mob guys get beat of money , look at the genovese guy who went to prison for love taping that guy in a restaurant , the debtor had zero fear of a the mob( maybe he did as he dropped the charges and paid the debt but he did testify against them )

as he went to the cops after being assaulted but later dropped the charges , so I guess being assaulted they end up paying the money back to avoid any more troubles

OcSleeper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 9:24 am He actually didn't. His nephew and nephew's brother-in-law owed the money.