Duel.com -- The first casino with 0% house edge games

[Dollartree]

Between February 6th and 15th, I placed 26 bets on Duel, ranging from $5 to $70, mostly on football (LaLiga, Serie A/B, Premier League) and a bit of basketball. I made a deposit of $225, won a few bets, and withdrew $300. After that, I continued betting for a couple more days, and my balance grew to $883. At that moment, I was unable to withdraw the money, so I wrote to the chat, and support replied that I needed to pass KYC. I fully completed the 3-level verification, including ID and proof of address. My verification status is "Completed." After that, support replied that I needed to wait 24-48 hours. During this "review," I tried to find out the reason, but no one ever responded to me. In the end, on the third day, they told me that they had completely voided my bets and my balance became negative $76. This is just ridiculous. Support cited "multi-accounting" as the reason, even though this is the only account I have. Moreover, I fully completed verification, and I am absolutely sure there is no other account using my data. After this, I spent a couple of hours talking on their official Discord channel, but I achieved nothing there. They didn't provide me with a single piece of evidence of my violation. Furthermore, the admins responded to all my logical questions so stupidly, as if their IQ is below room temperature.

So, to summarize:

1. I successfully passed 3-level verification.
2. My bets were between $5 and $70, which is literally 1-2% of the maximum bet on a match. What reason would I have to create multiple accounts "to increase limits"? In that case, I could have been betting $50-$700 from a single account.
3. I was placing bets for 10 days; why didn't you block me earlier, then?
4. You have no proof whatsoever. (And you won't find any because I didn't violate anything.)
5. On Discord, when I tried to resolve the issue, Duel admins openly insulted me, even though I remained polite even after this scam. This just shows the lack of education among the entire casino management.
6. One of the admins on Discord wrote that "there are sports syndicates that abuse casinos, but they use different IPs, and it's impossible to prove a connection between accounts." I'm writing again: I am not an abuser and am not connected to anyone. But if it's impossible to prove a connection even between such syndicates, then how does their system work? Why was I, an ordinary user, brazenly scammed in that case? It seems they block winning accounts without any proper review.
7. Yesterday I saw similar cases from people on this forum. These are likely widespread occurrences. Be careful and don't fall for their advertising like I did.

Oh, and the funniest part. During this whole time, all the admins, including the owner with the nickname "Monarch," were sitting in the Discord channel. Instead of any kind of help, they were discussing some easy girls and making stupid jokes, as if I had wandered into a channel full of kids. Just think about it—can you trust your money to such idiots? Proof:






The screenshot was taken before the balance was cancelled:

Hey man, I work support at Duel and took a look into this.  Your account was limited and these bets were voided because its VERY CLEAR that you were using alt accounts to evade limits.  You were given MULTIPLE warnings to stop doing that, and if you continued, your bets would be voided.   You ignored those warnings, and the bets were voided.

You stated in the discord channel "I think it's logical that if I've passed verification and my data wasn't in the system before, then I'm no longer a multi-account user".  We don't get into exactly how we track people multi-accounting, but KYC is NOT the only metric.

Monarch has been running casinos for almost 10 years now.  He's not going to scam a random player for $800.. its just not going to happen.  During those 10 years, the people working for him have gotten very good at detecting things like this, and something like voiding bets doesn't happen unless those people are 100% sure you are breaking the rules.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I doubt they will just invented those connection out of nowhere just to scam 883$ while they are spending more than that with their signature campaign here.

How many cases like this do we see? And I'm not referring to this casino. A lot. But then it turns out that we forum members have never had a problem with that, and those of us who know how a casino works know that it's not going to confiscate $1K to scam people. For a casino to operate, it just has to make sure there's enough traffic. The HE does the rest. $1K is peanunts.

I'm not saying that there hasn't been a mistake in this case, because sometimes it happens and we see the casino refunding the money to the user but there's no way they'd confiscate that amount without having some indication that the user broke the rules. And I say this about this casino as well as many others that advertise on the forum and we see similar accusations.

Well, I was going to post and see a new message has been posted.

Hey man, I work support at Duel and took a look into this.  Your account was limited and these bets were voided because its VERY CLEAR that you were using alt accounts to evade limits.  You were given MULTIPLE warnings to stop doing that, and if you continued, your bets would be voided.   You ignored those warnings, and the bets were voided.

It's just business as usual with these accusations.

[leea-1334]

I don't think it's a coincidence that those of you who come to this thread to raise doubts about whether Duel is provably fair or not, or to try to lecture others, are people who are promoting other casinos.

If anyone wants to cast doubt on whether Duel is provably fair, all they have to do is prove it. If they don't know how to check, there's this thing called the internet, search engines, and another thing called AI. I'm not a kindergarten teacher who has to explain obvious things. And the same goes for 0% HE. If anyone wants to cast doubt on whether the games that Duel promotes as 0% HE actually are not, what they have to do is provide evidence.

This is the curse of this forum,,, majority of posters are posting, not reading, not responding. And even worse, majority of posters who post in Gambling are not even gamblers. I would just be selective about who to respond to,,, you will see after a while who is worth discussing with.

They do not know what provably fair is, they do not understand that actual RTP and house edge is not the same thing (0% house edge is not 100% actual RTP), I see it even in chat rooms people coming in to complain about dice like 'I lost 15 in a row, scam',,, we live in a world where people are just babied in knowledge, everyone else must do their thinking for them.

[sportbettor]

You can read the review of Duel.com here: https://100bookies.com/duel-review/

[Dollartree]

They do not know what provably fair is, they do not understand that actual RTP and house edge is not the same thing (0% house edge is not 100% actual RTP), I see it even in chat rooms people coming in to complain about dice like 'I lost 15 in a row, scam',,, we live in a world where people are just babied in knowledge, everyone else must do their thinking for them.

This is so true man.  Glad to see the intelligence here is generally much higher than other places I've been.  Users reach out every day screaming that it can't be 0% edge because they lost 10 blackjack hands in row.

I find myself saying "Just because it's 0% edge doesn't guarantee that you'll win" multiple times per day, but educating angry gamblers isn't an easy task.  It's easier to yell "scam" than learn how it actually works.

[memehunter]

actual RTP and house edge is not the same thing

Really! What do you mean by that? is the word 'actual' is the prime differentiating factor here? My understanding is also that both are essentially same in large enough sample sizes. I am eager to know how are you creating this difference.

0% house edge is not 100% actual RTP

I believe that 0% = 100% RTP in large enough sample sizes.

[khaled0111]

I don't think it's a coincidence that those of you who come to this thread to raise doubts about whether Duel is provably fair or not, or to try to lecture others, are people who are promoting other casinos.

No need to take things personally.
I wasn’t trying to lecture you or anyone else about what to do and I’m in no position to do so. Also, I don’t see where in my reply I raised any doubts or questioned the legitimacy of Duel’s provably fair system. So I don’t understand the reason behind all this hostility!
In any case, I can guarantee you that whatever I write in any casino’s ann thread has nothing to do with (not influenced by) the casino I’m wearing it’s signature.

Really! What do you mean by that? is the word 'actual' is the prime differentiating factor here? My understanding is also that both are essentially same in large enough sample sizes. I am eager to know how are you creating this difference.

There might be a difference between the actual RTP and the theoretical RTP. This difference depends on the gambler’s luck and mainly on how many bets he has placed. You are right, the more bets he places, the more the actual RTP leans toward the theoretical RTP.

[mikel_012]

It's just business as usual with these accusations.

We need to remember that the bad guys are always more noisy than the good guys. If someone cheats the casino they will always come to the ANN topic to talk bad and try to get the money back. Nothing new here

I don't think it's a coincidence that those of you who come to this thread to raise doubts about whether Duel is provably fair or not, or to try to lecture others, are people who are promoting other casinos.

There is no doubt that Duel is provably fair. If you visit the website you can see they have a easy tool to verify every bet

If someone is doubting that, they probably do not know how any of this works or just want to FUD the competition without having any proof: https://duel.com/fairness

[Free Market Capitalist]

0% house edge is not 100% actual RTP

I believe that 0% = 100% RTP in large enough sample sizes.

He is wrong. RTP and HE are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter the sample size.

I wasn’t trying to lecture you...

False.

There might be a difference between the actual RTP and the theoretical RTP. This difference depends on the gambler’s luck and mainly on how many bets he has placed. You are right, the more bets he places, the more the actual RTP leans toward the theoretical RTP.

False as well. Unless you want to play on words here. If the RTP is 98%, it doesn't matter if you get 300% or -50% in the short term. RTP is a mathematical concept, and what you call short-term RTP results have nothing to do with the mathematical concept.

[mv1986]

0% house edge is not 100% actual RTP

I believe that 0% = 100% RTP in large enough sample sizes.

He is wrong. RTP and HE are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter the sample size.

In any probabilistic environment, sample size does matter. In mathematics, it is about certainty and rigorous proofs. Mathematics are deterministic, law of nature.

Statistics are probabilistic and empirical and you actually often times approximate results via sample size. You have a whole different toolset to evaluate outcomes (CI, RA, mean, median, SD...)

So sample size does matter individually, but the question asked here (I guess) is whether the collective RTP is 100% (in a large sample size, which I assume is approximately given if Duel has a lot of users). If they have a ton of players, Duel should hand as much money out as they are cashing in from players over time.
 
I can't say for sure, but maybe the word "actual" that @leea-1334 used, was to imply that for an individual, the 100% RTP rate is rather irrelevant unless that individual plays enormous volumes distributed among a very large number of events (dice rolls, slot rounds etc.).

There might be a difference between the actual RTP and the theoretical RTP. This difference depends on the gambler’s luck and mainly on how many bets he has placed. You are right, the more bets he places, the more the actual RTP leans toward the theoretical RTP.

False as well. Unless you want to play on words here. If the RTP is 98%, it doesn't matter if you get 300% or -50% in the short term. RTP is a mathematical concept, and what you call short-term RTP results have nothing to do with the mathematical concept.

What @khaled0111 labels as "short-term RTP" is most likely referring to a small sample size because sample size clearly matters. The larger the sample size, the closer the relationship between average payout and average wager, aka 100% RTP convergence.

In a probabilistic environment, which I think a casino is (it is not mathematical), a 100% RTP essentially means a redistribution of funds among players following a stochastic process.

[Free Market Capitalist]

0% house edge is not 100% actual RTP

I believe that 0% = 100% RTP in large enough sample sizes.

He is wrong. RTP and HE are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter the sample size.

In any probabilistic environment, sample size does matter. In mathematics, it is about certainty and rigorous proofs. Mathematics are deterministic, law of nature...

Nice wall of text but I don't know why you are quoting me because that has nothing to do with what I am saying. RTP and HE are two ways of expressing the same. They are mathematically interchangeable; if a game has a HE of 2%, it is because the RTP is 98%, and vice versa. So leea-1334 si simply wrong.

What @khaled0111 labels as "short-term RTP" is most likely referring to a small sample size because sample size clearly matters.

So, what @khaled0111 wrongly labels as "short-term RTP" would be more accurately described as short-term results, not "short-term RTP".

[mv1986]

What @khaled0111 labels as "short-term RTP" is most likely referring to a small sample size because sample size clearly matters.

So, what @khaled0111 wrongly labels as "short-term RTP" would be more accurately described as short-term results, not "short-term RTP".

You are frequently losing yourself in semantics, but it is ok. At least there is some hope that you do understand the concept of sample size in statistics, not mathematics:

...more accurately described as short-term results

whereas your "short-term" here undoubtedly refers to a low number of events (aka small sample size).

It doesn't matter the sample size.

lol

[Free Market Capitalist]

You are frequently losing yourself in semantics, but it is ok. At least there is some hope that you do understand the concept of sample size in statistics, not mathematics:

No, I'm not losing myself in anything. The concepts of HE and RTP are very clear, and this forum is full of people who have some idea of the concepts but don't understand them. Several of them have been quoted in this thread.

...more accurately described as short-term results

whereas your "short-term" here undoubtedly refers to a low number of events (aka small sample size).

It doesn't matter the sample size.

lol

Great way to talk nonsense. Shall I explain it to you like you're a primary school kid? I'll repeat it again: RTP and HE are two concepts that basically express the same thing in different ways, and talking about short-term RTP is nonsense because RTP refers to large statistical samples something that neither you nor khaled0111 nor leea-1334 are going to change, no matter how much you want to twist and turn the issue.

[nemesis_incarnate]

..

A multiple account violation can’t be justify because you can’t provide any evidence that you don’t own those account connected to you while casino have.

I doubt they will just invented those connection out of nowhere just to scam 883$ while they are spending more than that with their signature campaign here.

Challenge them on Askgamblers platform which they can provide their evidence.

Or on Casino Guru, mediators there are good too.

[mv1986]

Great way to talk nonsense. Shall I explain it to you like you're a primary school kid? I'll repeat it again: RTP and HE are two concepts that basically express the same thing in different ways, and talking about short-term RTP is nonsense because RTP refers to large statistical samples something that neither you nor khaled0111 nor leea-1334 are going to change, no matter how much you want to twist and turn the issue.

You don't get the point.

When @khaled0111 writes his post, I can go about it in two ways. Either I hammer him for not using the correct terminology, or I can try to understand what he is trying to convey. He may use wrong terminology, but I don't feel particularly incentivized to lecture him about something that I could interpret as being false (like you) or see the point he is making.

There might be a difference between the actual RTP and the theoretical RTP. This difference depends on the gambler’s luck and mainly on how many bets he has placed. You are right, the more bets he places, the more the actual RTP leans toward the theoretical RTP.

False as well. Unless you want to play on words here. If the RTP is 98%, it doesn't matter if you get 300% or -50% in the short term. RTP is a mathematical concept, and what you call short-term RTP results have nothing to do with the mathematical concept.

It is not false what he is saying. Whether he should be using "actual" vs. "theoretical" or whatever, sample size is all that matters in the context that @khaled0111 is talking about

mainly on how many bets he has placed

and you won't change that.

[leea-1334]

0% house edge is not 100% actual RTP

I believe that 0% = 100% RTP in large enough sample sizes.

He is wrong. RTP and HE are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter the sample size.

There is such a thing as theoretical RTP and actual RTP,,, you will see this in most casino slots and live games which publish the RTP (a fixed number) and the actual RTP (which they will show for 24 hours, 7 days, and 30 days).

HE is directly linked to the theoretical RTP, but I know I am not wrong here. I always use House Edge to not avoid confusion. The term RTP itself is a theoretical value.

We can argue all we want but the facts are casinos display actual RTP, as well as the theoretical RTP. We can acknowledge these and help people understand better what is HE and RTP.

[mv1986]

~

There is such a thing as theoretical RTP and actual RTP,,, you will see this in most casino slots and live games which publish the RTP (a fixed number) and the actual RTP (which they will show for 24 hours, 7 days, and 30 days).

HE is directly linked to the theoretical RTP, but I know I am not wrong here. I always use House Edge to not avoid confusion. The term RTP itself is a theoretical value.

We can argue all we want but the facts are casinos display actual RTP, as well as the theoretical RTP. We can acknowledge these and help people understand better what is HE and RTP.

Well, when @Free Market Capitalist refers to the RTP term and says sample size doesn't matter, I guess he is talking about total potential profit/loss (from casino or player perspective), which, despite n --> infinity, actually still follows a random walk. True is that the average profit per round converges to the RTP. Total profit/loss in a 100% RTP setup still has its own randomness although intuitively you might think it has to be a zero sum game in the long run, but in fact it isn't. However, random walk swings in true 100% RTP setups could make the casino money, but it could as well drain the casino to bankruptcy. If this is what @Free Market Capitalist refers to, then it's correct.

I have done tons of random walk simulations in academic papers about VaR calculations for precious metal and raw material positions held by banks, and then related that to their overall risk profile. It's crazy how random walks can play out. The law of big numbers is not that trivial for someone who is not familiar with the matter, because at first it is not as intuitive as one might think.


@leea-1334 let's assume that the casino really displays what is going on, then it is correct that they can only present numbers for limited time intervals, but here is the thing:

If the "theoretical RTP" (as you call it) is 100% and the casino then provides the "actual RTP" for various time intervals, the actual RTP should fluctuate around 100%. Fluctuate more in smaller time intervals, fluctuate less in larger time intervals. But what is more important for the players, is that the RTP should at least every now and then exceed 100%. If it is truly a symmetrical game and it is claimed to come with 100% RTP, there should be time intervals when the casino says "this week the actual RTP was 105%".

Fact of the matter is that no casino would offer 100% RTP across the board with fully asymmetric games because profit/loss would be random, and businesses rather don't bet on randomness while seeking profitability.

[leea-1334]

@leea-1334 let's assume that the casino really displays what is going on, then it is correct that they can only present numbers for limited time intervals, but here is the thing:

If the "theoretical RTP" (as you call it) is 100% and the casino then provides the "actual RTP" for various time intervals, the actual RTP should fluctuate around 100%. Fluctuate more in smaller time intervals, fluctuate less in larger time intervals. But what is more important for the players, is that the RTP should at least every now and then exceed 100%. If it is truly a symmetrical game and it is claimed to come with 100% RTP, there should be time intervals when the casino says "this week the actual RTP was 105%".

Fact of the matter is that no casino would offer 100% RTP across the board with fully asymmetric games because profit/loss would be random, and businesses rather don't bet on randomness while seeking profitability.

The fluctuation depends on sample size rather than timeframe,,, and it is impossible to see that in what casinos display, weekends I expect have more plays, the idea of them showing it is psychology, to show players like OH wow this slot is hot right now, or OH wow this slot has only paid 89% RTP so the JP should be giving up soon!

Roulette is a great example of exceeding, HE on Europe roulette is 2.7% which translates to theoretical RTP of 97.3,,, I can often see 98% or more on some tables if you move thru 20 tables

I think anyway this is why I always use House Edge games and not slots, HE is baked into every dice roll, every roulette roll but is programmed into slots in a very different way,,, I respect everybody's opinion mv1986 or Free Market Capitalist or memehunter etc but I think us arguing over terminology is no longer beneficial to the users of Duel  Or we can open a thread and do it there

[Free Market Capitalist]

You don't get the point.

I do get the point.

When @khaled0111 writes his post, I can go about it in two ways. Either I hammer him for not using the correct terminology, or I can try to understand what he is trying to convey. He may use wrong terminology, but I don't feel particularly incentivized to lecture him about something that I could interpret as being false (like you) or see the point he is making.

This is not a matter of interpretation:

0% house edge is not 100% actual RTP

That is false. As false as 2+2=5. You "interpretation" doesn't change that.

It is not false what he is saying. Whether he should be using "actual" vs. "theoretical" or whatever...

It is false. The fact that you and they don't understand the concepts and choose to relativize them doesn't change the facts. If a game has an RTP of 98% (or an HE of 2%, which is the same thing) and you win 10X on the first spin, if you say you've obtained a 1,000% "short-term RTP", you're talking nonsense.

[memehunter]

I hammer him for not using the correct terminology,

LOL, that would be fun and somehow right hahaha. I love doing that 

I respect everybody's opinion mv1986 or Free Market Capitalist or memehunter

I am not sure about other two random guys but totally applicable to me 

but I think us arguing over terminology is no longer beneficial to the users of Duel

I dont care about any particular casino/players, discourse is more important. BTW, is this a silent admission of you using wrong terms/concepts