A straightforward comedy competition quickly becomes an exercise in controlled disorder: contestants enter one at a time, attempt to make Beta Squad laugh, earn £100 when someone breaks, and potentially claim a chair that determines the eventual winner. The format should provide an easy progression from increasingly desperate performances toward a final champion, but the hosts are almost comically incapable of following their own central instruction. They laugh before routines properly begin, distract contestants, argue over what counts, bring people back, turn one participant into security, and eventually admit they have barely understood the concept themselves. That lack of discipline weakens the competition but becomes part of the entertainment, turning the episode into less of a genuine try-not-to-laugh challenge and more of a showcase for unpredictable performers colliding with equally disruptive hosts.
The chair mechanic gives the chaos at least some structure. Making someone laugh guarantees £100, but replacing the current leader requires the group to decide whether the new contestant was actually funnier. That distinction allows a deliberately bad Minion joke, physical comedy, animal impressions, strange talents, and increasingly elaborate character bits to compete on something beyond simply triggering a reflexive laugh. Isaac emerges as the benchmark after his Minion routine and ultimately retains the winning position, while several later performers succeed at making someone break without convincing the group they deserve his chair. The subjective voting naturally invites arguments, which fits the personalities involved even when the criteria for winning remain loose.
The contestants benefit from having almost no restrictions on how they pursue a laugh. One arrives with Minion jokes built around wordplay, another performs animal impressions, someone demonstrates an ability to make a noise with his ear, and another asks the hosts to punch him in the stomach. Several performers rely more on appearance, awkwardness, physical commitment, or direct interaction with the group than prepared jokes. The variety keeps the premise from becoming a succession of amateur stand-up routines, and some of the funniest reactions occur before contestants have done anything substantial. The downside is that the hosts' low resistance to laughing makes it difficult to tell whether a routine genuinely succeeded or merely entered a room where everyone was already primed to lose.
Michael becomes the video's most effective improvisational addition. Initially treated as one of the stronger competitors, he is brought back and given £100 to serve as security, removing contestants when the hosts decide their attempts are finished. The role gradually becomes its own recurring joke as people resist leaving, plead for more time, return to their bits, or force Michael to physically shepherd them toward the exit. By the end, his commitment earns him £1,000 despite not being the formal winner. That improvised reward feels appropriate because his security role contributes more to the second half's identity than the actual chair competition does.
The episode is funniest when contestants exploit the group's inability to remain composed. A performer begging for money for his supposedly hungry son refuses to accept dismissal and repeatedly works Michael Jackson's “Beat It” into his resistance to security, transforming a simple attempt into an extended confrontation. Another contestant directs nearly all his attention toward Chunkz, making the group's reaction to the strangely targeted interaction more important than the prepared material. Even the final performer becomes funny partly because the hosts recognize him from an earlier appearance despite his attempt to present himself as someone else. These moments work because the performers adapt to the room rather than simply delivering a joke and waiting for a verdict.
That same improvisational energy repeatedly damages the competitive premise. The group eventually acknowledges that they have misunderstood what they are supposed to be doing and decides only near the end to genuinely attempt not to laugh. By that point, laughs have been awarded for entrances, reactions, interruptions, accidental moments, and behavior that occurs around the routine rather than necessarily because of it. The hosts also speak freely to performers, encourage bits, participate physically, and sometimes laugh among themselves, so there is no consistent standard separating a contestant successfully breaking them from the group simply entertaining itself. Isaac's eventual victory therefore functions more as a collective judgment that he was memorable than as the result of a clearly administered contest.
The pacing is similarly uneven. Rapid contestant entrances give the episode strong variety, but several unsuccessful routines continue after their central idea has already landed or failed, and arguments about whether someone deserves the chair can become longer than the performance itself. Promotional interruptions also arrive frequently: the hosts advertise Shades, ask viewers to subscribe as they approach five million subscribers, request an intentionally absurd 100 million likes, and end with multiple contestant plugs. None of this is unusual for creator-driven entertainment, and the Shades segment is integrated through a contestant already connected to a previous video, but it contributes to the sense that the nominal competition is only one component of a much looser group production.
By the conclusion, the money distribution reveals what the episode actually values. Isaac receives £1,000 as the group's chosen funniest contestant, Michael receives the same amount for becoming the “goat” of the video through his security work, and numerous contestants leave with smaller prizes after earning laughs. The opening description appears to promise a much larger final prize, creating a notable inconsistency with the £1,000 ultimately awarded to Isaac, and the episode does not clearly resolve that discrepancy. Even so, the final recognition of both the official winner and the accidental breakout participant captures the video's strengths: the planned format provides the excuse, but spontaneous personalities, commitment to ridiculous bits, and Beta Squad's own inability to behave like neutral judges provide most of the comedy.
Pros
- The rotating chair gives a simple try-not-to-laugh setup an additional competitive layer by requiring the hosts to judge who was funniest rather than rewarding every laugh equally.
- Contestants use jokes, impressions, physical comedy, characters, strange talents, and direct interaction, preventing the performances from becoming too uniform.
- Michael's unexpected promotion from contestant to security guard creates an effective recurring bit and gives later performances another source of unpredictable comedy.
- The hosts are willing to interact extensively with contestants, allowing weak premises to evolve into funnier improvised exchanges.
- Isaac remains a recognizable benchmark throughout the episode, giving the otherwise loose competition a winner the group repeatedly has to compare against.
Cons
- Beta Squad laugh, interrupt, participate, and distract so frequently that the central try-not-to-laugh rule is barely enforced, something they eventually acknowledge themselves.
- The subjective chair voting lacks consistent criteria, making Isaac's victory more of a group preference than the outcome of a clearly structured competition.
- Several routines and post-performance arguments continue well beyond the point where their central joke has landed.
- Promotional segments and repeated subscription requests interrupt a format that already struggles to maintain competitive momentum.
- The opening appears to establish a £10,000 final prize, while Isaac ultimately receives £1,000, leaving a significant inconsistency in the stated stakes without a clear explanation.
The competition never becomes disciplined enough to function as a serious try-not-to-laugh challenge, but Beta Squad's failure to control the room produces a different kind of entertainment built around contestant improvisation, chaotic judging, and Michael's unexpectedly valuable security role. Isaac provides a deserving focal winner within the group's subjective rules, yet the inconsistent stakes and near-abandonment of the core format keep a funny collection of performances from becoming an equally satisfying competition.
