Yahoo’s has launched a new “for cash” poker website on their UK & Ireland property. Users can play against others via a Flash interface, and are offered $1,000 in credit when they make their first deposit into the account. Registration is allowed from most countries, although the U.S. and Gibraltar, where online gambling are prohibited, are blocked (I tried). The service is provided through a partner, St Minver, but the game play occurs on the Yahoo site.
The introductory video says “Congratulations on choosing Yahoo Poker…use your skills and try your luck at winning the pot.” Players have maximum loss limits – they cannot withdraw more than GBP1000 from their bank account every ten days.
In 2004, Yahoo and Google announced that they were removing gambling advertising from their sites. This launch seems to contradict their position on Internet gambling.
This is an extremely controversial move, and one that Yahoo may not be equipped to handle. Yahoo does provide a “responsible gaming” tutorial, but the press will be quick to jump on any tales of woe from players who’ve lost a lot of money from the site. Broken marriages and lost homes will only make the stories juicer.
Come on Michael, Yahoo is a company and poker brings in the money. It’s really up to the player to be responsible and if they don’t blow their cash on Yahoo, they’ll gladly do it on Pokerace or Partypoker. At least with Yahoo, you know some responsible measures will be in place.
Also, Yahoo never claimed to be ‘good’ or ‘not evil’, did they?
Great…. I lose plenty of fake money on Yahoo. Now when I’m on vacation in another country I can lose real money!
Zaki – I agree 100%. And I still think they’re going to take a beating on this over time.
And I can’t wait for Yahoo Porn, which is significantly more legal in the U.S. than gambling.
They should start with the blonde in the picture – as part of the strip poker segment.
Is she suppose to verse us in perils of gambling? Her clothing looks very responsible.
You’re right…strip poker is a good segue into more traditional porn.
They have done a good looking UI and it’s in the browser – most poker sites require you to download their software, and they’ll be tapping in to their existing Yahoo user base. They also seem to have a built in “Poker Buddy” that offers advice on table actions – it definitely seems to be focusing on beginners rather than the hardcore poker players, but I expect some of them may come fishing here/
I was looking for some info on a referral program, but they don’t seem to offer it at this time.
Rodney
PokerDIY.com – Manage your Home Poker League
I don’t think you will see Yahoo Porn anytime soon, Michael. Yahoo got stung back in 2001 when they announced that they would allow partners to sell adult videos and DVDs on Yahoo Shopping.
Though maybe times have changed enough since then that there wouldn’t be as big an outcry today.
Yahoo is trying to establish that whole “look at us, we’re nice and cool” image.. that recent thing where they went green (or at least pretend to be..) and like Mike said the removal of gambling advertisements..
Maybe they see the different sections of Yahoo in different countries really as such.. feeling they can have a different rulebook for every region. Guess they didn’t account for TechCrunch to break the news
Never played poker in my life, never plan on playing poker in my life.
So long as it’s hosted from the Yahoo UK site, I don’t imagine there will be too much controversy. Folks there are pretty comfortable with gambling… something us Americans can learn from.
Quite frankly, I wish Yahoo would take gambling ads again. It might be a nice revenue boost… they’d have near 100% of the market so long as Google doesn’t take gambling ads.
If you have a moment, send a note on to your congressperson to get rid of that silly internet gambling ban.
@ Stephen (he’s not serious)
I think it’s a good move for Yahoo. They’re not going to beat Google at their own game so why not change it up? The UI is great compared to most other poker sites and say what you want about Yahoo, but it’s a reputable name to the general public. I’d be much more comfortable giving them my CC info than some random site in the Bahamas.
@ Joe
I think he’s half serious.
Oh come on. The Brits are huge gamblers: you can bet on virtually anything, anytime; in any pub, any high street. In Britain we have a strong sense of personal responsilbility—you gamble and lose, its your problem—so I can’t see the press making a big deal about yet another place to gamble in an ocean of possibilities.
FYI – I’m getting “Sorry, you tried to login from a prohibited network” when trying to login with an Australian IP address. We have no specific legistlation disallowing the use of online poker sites, so not sure what’s going on there.
And your link to the site is broken.
Apart from the general moral questions, I guess they can always argue that the site was meant only for British and Irish users. Yahoo may very well plan to block IP addresses based on source. Let’s see.
The US authorities have a puritanical approach to online gaming yet the US is where you go to gamble in style .
The UK authorities on other hand do appear more tolerant to gambling as a part of everyday life but Carl #14 overstates the strong British sense of ‘ personal responsibility ‘ as the ever distrusting British Government recently announced it was only prepared to award one licence for a super casino of the type you cant wander around Nevada without tripping over.
My money is also on Yahoo coming to grief here.
Pretty important to point out the Google still accepts advertising from Adult Web sites. This is something Yahoo! stopped doing years ago.
@desik
I think a lot of the governments decision on scaling back the supercasino programme was “Not In My Back Yard” style opposition. It’s getting difficult to build a supermarket these days, let alone a supercasino.
I think it’s ok for Yahoo. If poker was so evil afterall, it wouldn’t be legal in so many countries.
Michael, this is a fascinating development but *not* a new wrinkle — Yahoo has been a happy successful licensed online gambling operator in the UK for several years now, with their principal offering Yahoo Bingo.
Responsible gaming is like responsible drinking – however intelligent and experienced you are, every so often you go a bit too far.
A very close friend of mine recently got carried away and lost around £12,000 (approx $24,000 US) in a couple of weeks before finally realising they weren’t going to win it back.
In the UK gambling is taxed so the government are more than happy to allow it, regardless of how many lives it ruins.
Registration from a Canadian IP address appears to be prohibted as well.
As for: “The service is provided through a partner, St Minver, but the game play occurs on the Yahoo site.”
While I can’t speak for game play because I wasn’t able to register, Yahoo Poker’s registration definitely takes place on St. Minver’s website: https://poker.s...tion/login.html.
Because Yahoo’s not actually operating the poker “casino”, I agree that this is probably an experiment. I’ve heard reports of UK divisions of other major US media companies toying with doing the same.
I’m curious to know how autonomous the UK/IE division of Yahoo operates from the US parent. Regardless, I think the implications for Yahoo’s overall brand will be the same, whether you believe this particular foray will bite them or not. It certainly bit the “Yahoo” brand when Yahoo China was accused of helping the Chinese government imprison and torture political dissident Wang Xiaoning.
@scot
The local authorities in many UK cities simply saw the ’supercasino’ licence as a licence to print money in their backyard , that’s why the competition for it was so fierce, the opposition came from the usual suspects opposed to gambling who certainly managed to influence the political decision to limit the number of UK ’supercasino’ licences awarded to one.
Those interests could just as easilly turn on Yahoo and probably will if they see it as an opportunity of getting free publicity for their cause – ‘BISHOP BASHES YAHOO’, etc. ‘ headlines which of course wouldnt get any coverage here…:)
- Yeah I would feel more comfortable with –
— Yahoo taking my money rather than partypoker ..etc..
-RB
A bunch of poker sites banned online players due to some legislation. I guess yahoo isn’t one of them…yet. Here are the banned ones: http://listafte...US+Players.aspx
Plus additional poker info: http://listafte...er/Default.aspx
I agree 100% with Mike. They are going to get grief. You can’t casually dabble into vice-related businesses (gambling, porn, etc) without dragging your company through the mud. I don’t care if the service is only in the UK. It is a U.S. company and various people (stockholders, feds, watchdog groups) aren’t going to like this.
ok whats the catch- I guess i can’t deposit $5 play a few games and walk out with $950 in cash?
;( turns out you only get the $1000 if you play $10,000 in games, ahhh well ;P
@ ZAKI
1st comment…nice dude!
If Yahoo! wants to collect taxes on winnings and make large enough contributions to U.S. presidential and congressional officials, it could be running a U.S. online poker site tomorrow…
Woohoo! Another way to feed my poker addiction
I’ve gotten better now that I’ve learned the probability of a great hand:
http://listafte...Card+Poker.aspx
What’s wrong with Yahoo? They are making money giving pleasure themselves and poker-players.
Has anyone already said: Poke her? I don’t even know her!
Because it was just sitting there, you know, waiting.
And: I am glad I am not allowed to partake, because I probably would, and then I probably would again, and then probably again. And, well…
As for Yahoo–from a marketing and PR perspective 1.) dumb, unnecessary move. 2.) will keep PR people busy tho. so it could be a strategy from a consulting partner looking for follow-on work or, 3.) Maybe they’re trying to scare Microsoft away for good.
Yeah, edgy move for Yahoo. They should pursue the Moola model, where you never pay out any cash.
Do Yahoo or Google take advertising dollars from state lotteries?
This whole issue is absolutely infuriating to me… and what is gambling anyways? Any idiot can get a brokerage account and dump his life savings into a penny stock… but God forbid we allow someone to bet $10 on the Suns/Spurs.
I don’t really think it’s all that edgy Michael, considering it’s in Europe. I’ve played poker professionally for a number of years and have come to know many Europeans through it. Their culture, being considerably less religious, believes a lot more in personal freedom and civil liberties than ours does. It would be much more controversial if online poker were legalized in the U.S. and Yahoo started a cardroom here.
In Europe alcoholism and gambling addiction aren’t viewed as diseases, they’re simply bad choices one might make. That’s a big difference between the typical American, Alcoholics Anonymous-inspired ethic. If a European loses his mortgage at the poker table, he views it as his fault. Americans are much more likely to blame Yahoo for taking advantage of their “disease”, though I like to think that even here most people take responsibility for their own actions and the image to the contrary is largely due to a sample bias caused by sensationalist media.
So I really don’t anticipate too much trouble. They also aren’t the first American corporation to start an online gaming site aimed solely at foreign players, but I think all of the others were owned by casino operators.
Gambling is allowed from Gibraltar, just not with any Gambling company registered in Gibraltar.
All play will be through St Minver as you need all players aggregated through the network all Yahoo do is provide the means to access that network
Phil
Gambling is not taxed to the player only to the companies so why should it bother us, if the government didn’t get tax this way it would have to come from somewhere.
In response to the Yahoo Online Poker Article.
I started writing a comment on my company’s blog and ended up writing an essay, so figured it would be better as a follow up post.
While the original posting was brief, it opens up discussion for several elements. Having worked with an online-poker related company I am indeed biased, but I have outlined several key perspectives from an attempted impartial standpoint.
1: Contradictory: The main focus I’m hearing is that in 04′ Google and Yahoo pulled gambling ads, and that Yahoo is now flip-flopping on their stance. I think the reason for that pulling gets complicated and perhaps meshed in with some clever PR moves. If I recall correctly they both positioned the pulling along the lines of ‘being society focused’ and ‘doing what’s right for the online community’ etc. There was without doubt pressure from the FCC and other bodies to pull the ads and at some point they really did not have a choice if they wanted to keep moving forward. With that said, was it really their intrinsic desire to pull the ads, or a convenient and compliant reaction to outside pressures. I’m not saying at all that they wouldn’t have pulled on their own, perhaps they would have, but back to the argument that this move is contradictory primarily due to their position in 04′: I’m not 100% convinced.
2: Controversial Move: In the online poker sphere, Yahoo is not the first US based company to have an initial position against gaming and then introduce it overseas. Paypal back in early 2000’s offered payment services between players and online gaming sites. At some point though they pulled all services as they didn’t feel it represented their brand. (This could have been due to outside pressures, or their internal business motives). Last summer, however, Paypal introduced payment services for online gambling exclusively for players not living in the US. Is this move contradictory as well or is it a smart financial action while completely abiding by domestic laws? Back to the discussion that this Yahoo move is controversial, I ask why should it be controversial? Online poker is something that will not go away. Perhaps with Yahoo in the game, albeit overseas, they will hold their gaming integrity to a higher standard than some other sites and perhaps offer a safer solution for players. The argument shouldn’t be based on if this is right or wrong, that debate will go on for decades, but should be based on how we can develop the most ethical, accountable, and safest system for this poker phenomenon.
3. Media Attention: There was a brief line that noted how the media will be salivating over the first story where someone loses their college tuition. This upsets me for two reasons:
First, it is extremely unfortunate when a poker player plays beyond their means or skill lever and has unfortunate results; results that may have an impact on their family or financial situation. Gambling addiction CAN be a very serious problem. We need to be concentrating on how to provide education for responsible gaming. We need systems that help detect potential problematic behavior and intervention efforts to prevent it from developing.
Second, I feel the media has played a huge role in the negative perception of online poker. You notice the articles focus on how Steve maxed out his credit cards, or Jill stole from her grandma to pay off the car she lost. Yes, these extreme cases happen, just like with anything that develops into a problem. But it represents a micro portion of the online poker community. We don’t hear too many stories of how poker developed Jason’s math skills or taught Kevin financial management, but examples like these are very prevalent.
4. Will it Work: Putting all of these socio-political discussions aside, will Yahoo be successful with their efforts; Looking strictly from a business and online poker standpoint? I have mixed thoughts that lean toward the negative. One thing to understand is that this initial platform will ONLY be available to non-US players. The United States makes up over 80% of the online poker market, so my first major concern is with critical mass. With online poker, you have to critical mass; a site like Poker Stars has over 60,000 player on at any given moment (and at peak times over 90,000). This allows players to have access to available games at their pleasure. Yahoo may face some major issues here as currently they will only have grabs at 20% of the online poker community, many of which are already are happy with a handful of established sites. Differentiation in the online poker sphere is very difficult. Assuming you have software that is of equal quality, and you magically get some players wagering so it’s not a ghost town, attracting new players from others sites is a major challenge.
With that said, Yahoo doe’s have a globally established brand, and can possibly cross sell to it’s current UK user base. This may very well be successful, especially if they can target users that are interested in poker but have not yet tried online poker. These users may be more likely to lose their online poker virginity to a trusted name like Yahoo.
The online poker market will continue to grow, IMO, not as rapid as it did between 2003 and 2006, but it still is one of the hottest things around. Who knows, maybe Yahoo will pave the way for a legalized online platform in the United States. The day that comes we will see another explosion in online poker; monumentally bigger than the last five years.
Hello,
As far as I know Yahoo doesn’t have Affiliate programs as opposed to the leading poker rooms of the online poker market (Pacific Poker, Full Tilt, Party Poker etc). These poker rooms get a lot of money from their affliates program. This brings up the question if Yahoo would be able to rely on its brand only and beat its competitors without exploiting the large income from affiliates.
Hi,
An affiliate program is to be added over the summer; Yahoo will be keen to build a big affiliate network for the poker