Rock Paper Scissors
Duel listed this as an upcoming project in its own FAQ and it has since shipped. Structurally it is the most interesting game in the lobby, because the house is not on the other side of it.
What changes when the house steps out
Every other game here is you against the operator. That relationship is what a house edge describes: the operator takes a defined share and the maths determines how much. Remove the operator as counterparty and the concept stops applying — there is no edge to argue about because there is nothing on the other side taking one.
What replaces it is a different question, and a harder one to answer: is the matchmaking honest, and is the outcome resolved without interference? Those are trust problems rather than arithmetic problems, and they need a different kind of proof.
Why the maths is genuinely neutral
Rock paper scissors between two players has no strategy in the game-theoretic sense. The equilibrium is to throw each option one third of the time at random — and any deviation from that can be exploited by an opponent who spots it. Against a random opponent, every strategy performs identically.
Which means there is no skill edge to distribute, no house edge to charge, and a perfectly symmetrical contest. Any margin the operator takes has to come from a rake on the pot rather than from the odds, and that is a visible, stated number rather than something buried in a payout table.
The pattern is worth noticing: people are famously bad at being random. Human players under-throw repeats and over-correct after losses. Against a genuinely random opponent that costs nothing, but against another human it is the only exploitable thing in the game.
Provably fair still matters here
You might assume verification is unnecessary when the house is not the counterparty. It is not — the operator still runs the matchmaking, still resolves the round, and still knows both throws before either player does.
The same seed commitment used across the Originals applies: outcomes are committed before the round and can be checked afterwards. That proves the resolution was not altered once both throws were visible, which is the specific thing worth proving in a PvP game. There is a working checker on the provably fair page.
Where it fits
Duel's stated direction is toward games that take nothing, and the difficulty with that is structural — a zero-edge game against the house needs caps to survive its own variance, because the operator is exposed to every swing. Player-versus-player sidesteps the problem entirely: the money moves between players and the operator's exposure is zero regardless of volume.
That makes PvP the only format where zero edge scales without limits, which is presumably why the same roadmap also lists a zero-edge PvP sportsbook as the next ambition. RPS is the small version of a much larger idea.
And the name
A site called Duel launching a head-to-head game between two players is not a coincidence. It is the only title in the lobby that matches what the brand claims to be.
Two players, no house
The odds are symmetrical by construction. What is left is whether you can be random.
Play at Duel