New Slot Announcement Extra Chilli, BTG

[nikantw]

Optimum strategy has 96.82% TRTP and is achieved by .... always gamble your free spins!!

Ok, high TRTP for high rollers, not the 1st time we see this but I don't like it.
I advise people not to buy or gamble their features, not frequently anyway.

 

[shadow123]

Thats a first,advising the player to gamble the hard won feature.
Wonder what charity they donate unused spins to,kangaroo orphans sounds good.

 

[goatwack]

Wow. Wadda line to include in the help files.

I see how that would make perfect sense

noooot

 

[smart_croatia]

Play it for free now!

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Edit: It is a little buggy with frequent errors though.

happy dayz ty slotplayer ca ya on stream

 

[smart_croatia]

tbh i dont think that BTG will make slot that replace bonanza and make it second choice

 

[Gaz237]

On that link that Interlog put up, the minimum bet is 20p.

Is this going to be the setting?.

I was thinking that now they have lowered the buy it feature to 50X, it was only going to be £5 to buy.

Bit of a pisser if you still have to shell out £10 like the Rabbit

 

[dunover]

OK, the BTG chap who allowed me to make the video a week early wanted to be very sure people understood the feature gamble can lose ALL the spins on the first two attempts. To that end I have made a video to help people get a feel for it with 10 features played with NO gamble used, i.e. the 8 or 12 spins it tends to trigger with.

I then played 10 bonus rounds whereby I gamble the feature from 8 to at least 16 spins, i.e. used the gamble function twice. See what you think.

 

[interlog]

Well the link that I posted no longer contains the game.... didn't take too long for the powers that be to remove it I guess.

 

[Jd666]

Well the link that I posted no longer contains the game.... didn't take too long for the powers that be to remove it I guess.

When I tried it yesterday, I bought a feature, it brought HOT in and a win from Tens.
Froze my laptop on the cascade and had to reboot it.
I hope it does this on release so I cant play the fooker

 

[dunover]

Well the link that I posted no longer contains the game.... didn't take too long for the powers that be to remove it I guess.

Yes, BTG are rightly protective of their new masterpiece and thus only pre-selected persons with permission could review/play the game - any 'unofficial' links are quickly spotted and nullified. Be patient, on Wednesday next everybody will have the chance to see and play the demo when it goes live. Somebody is being a bit naughty if they've been allowed a special privilege of a demo game and then posted it publicly. Next time BTG won't be including that person in their pre-release list I'd imagine!

 

[colinsunderland]

So first 10 features without gambling
3 were over 1 x stake and broke down to, 1 was 11x another 2 were slightly over 1x, rest were under the stake.

Lets be clear too, you buy a feature at £50, the stake is £50 not £1. Casinos confirm that by not letting you buy the feature using a bonus as it exceeds the max stake. If the stake is £1 then it would be allowed.

Sorry mate, but if you were playing that for real money the amounts of bastards you would have been shouting would have exceeded any other video you have done, do you have to be positive about it for the early access or something?

 

[interlog]

Yes, BTG are rightly protective of their new masterpiece and thus only pre-selected persons with permission could review/play the game - any 'unofficial' links are quickly spotted and nullified. Be patient, on Wednesday next everybody will have the chance to see and play the demo when it goes live. Somebody is being a bit naughty if they've been allowed a special privilege of a demo game and then posted it publicly. Next time BTG won't be including that person in their pre-release list I'd imagine!

I haven't got a clue how this website managed to get the game in demo mode. Perhaps it was a simple as doctoring the link to the game from bonanza to extra chilii?

 

[bluebirdy]

The 2nd video makes it look even worse than the first. I have asked you UKGC to comment on this slot

 

[snorky510238]

OK, the BTG chap who allowed me to make the video a week early wanted to be very sure people understood the feature gamble can lose ALL the spins on the first two attempts. To that end I have made a video to help people get a feel for it with 10 features played with NO gamble used, i.e. the 8 or 12 spins it tends to trigger with.

I then played 10 bonus rounds whereby I gamble the feature from 8 to at least 16 spins, i.e. used the gamble function twice. See what you think.

Agree with the symbol clarity issue(bonanza is better) and I am colour blind so the blue and purple look the same to me which really takes the thrill out of it especially when they could have used yellow or black.Most games it doesn't matter because the shapes are different but chilli is not going to be that enjoyable for me. Not sure the gamble is a good idea either.I can just imagine someone chasing a loss/waiting a bit longer than average for the bonus/having that impulsive moment to gamble only to hit black.I think the thread will outstrip bonanza in the long run. By the way is 117,649 still the top megaways or is it less?

 

[dunover]

Agree with the symbol clarity issue(bonanza is better) and I am colour blind so the blue and purple look the same to me which really takes the thrill out of it especially when they could have used yellow or black.Most games it doesn't matter because the shapes are different but chilli is not going to be that enjoyable for me. Not sure the gamble is a good idea either.I can just imagine someone chasing a loss/waiting a bit longer than average for the bonus/having that impulsive moment to gamble only to hit black.I think the thread will outstrip bonanza in the long run. By the way is 117,649 still the top megaways or is it less?

Still the same. 117649 max. ways.

 

[dunover]

I haven't got a clue how this website managed to get the game in demo mode. Perhaps it was a simple as doctoring the link to the game from bonanza to extra chilii?

No, it would have to have some kind of developer source at this stage, from BTG to that specific slot.

 

[dunover]

So first 10 features without gambling
3 were over 1 x stake and broke down to, 1 was 11x another 2 were slightly over 1x, rest were under the stake.

Lets be clear too, you buy a feature at £50, the stake is £50 not £1. Casinos confirm that by not letting you buy the feature using a bonus as it exceeds the max stake. If the stake is £1 then it would be allowed.

Sorry mate, but if you were playing that for real money the amounts of bastards you would have been shouting would have exceeded any other video you have done, do you have to be positive about it for the early access or something?

I (perhaps unwisely) will respond your insinuation-laden and usual borderline flaming negativity:

1. Conveniently you mislead with that post by deliberately ignoring the fact that for the first 10x£50 I demonstrated with no feature gamble my net returns were around 750-800, a substantial gain.

2. The second section of 10 using gamble were not as successful but as a whole over the whole 20 I broke about even, or a small gain IIRC.

3. My video reviews have always attempted to fully explain a new slot and if I think it's awful or good I'll say so - every time. Look at what I thought about BTG's dreadful Temple Quest to remind yourself. Extra Chilli is similar to Bonanza and it's no secret on here or YT I love that slot, so wouldn't it be reasonable to expect me to like this one?

I get used to feeding the trolls on YT comments, but on here I expected better.

 

[colinsunderland]

I (perhaps unwisely) will respond your insinuation-laden and usual borderline flaming negativity:

1. Conveniently you mislead with that post by deliberately ignoring the fact that for the first 10x£50 I demonstrated with no feature gamble my net returns were around 750-800, a substantial gain.

2. The second section of 10 using gamble were not as successful but as a whole over the whole 20 I broke about even, or a small gain IIRC.

3. My video reviews have always attempted to fully explain a new slot and if I think it's awful or good I'll say so - every time. Look at what I thought about BTG's dreadful Temple Quest to remind yourself. Extra Chilli is similar to Bonanza and it's no secret on here or YT I love that slot, so wouldn't it be reasonable to expect me to like this one?

I get used to feeding the trolls on YT comments, but on here I expected better.

So because I don't agree with you about a slot then I'm trolling or flaming. Does that not mean you are the same by disagreeing with me?

I'm not trolling, I'm giving my opinion. That is all.

Actually just adding this, the bit about you having to be positive was a genuine question, if thats what you mean by trolling, it wasn't. BTG aren't exactly up there with the most trustworthy companies, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they have implied to people reviewing the slot that if the review isn't good, then it will be the last time they get early access. Having said that, obviously if they did people wouldn't say so, so I apologise for that, it does read like I was having a go at you, and I wasn't. I like your videos and have actually defended you against the trolls on YT more than once.

 

[dunover]

So because I don't agree with you about a slot then I'm trolling or flaming. Does that not mean you are the same by disagreeing with me?

I'm not trolling, I'm giving my opinion. That is all.

You are not simply disagreeing with me as you damn well know, but insinuating that I have been influenced to be positive about the game in return for early access. Don't try and change the clearly explained substance of my reply which refers specifically (and was bolded) to the part of your post that infers just that. Take your accusations elsewhere.

 

[colinsunderland]

You are not simply disagreeing with me as you damn well know, but insinuating that I have been influenced to be positive about the game in return for early access. Don't try and change the clearly explained substance of my reply which refers specifically (and was bolded) to the part of your post that infers just that. Take your accusations elsewhere.

I've just added something to my earlier post regarding that.

 

[interlog]

Watched both of the review videos now and it does appear to be an interesting game to be played.

Not sure about the gamble feature though. You need the spins to build the multiplier for a decent win. But I would be kicking myself gambling it two times and then not getting any spins during the bonus (starting from a 3 scatter drop in), especially after having waited ages for the bonus round.

Dunover, how does the base game behave itself? Does it keep you going akin to Bonanza?

 

[interlog]

The 2nd video makes it look even worse than the first. I have asked you UKGC to comment on this slot

Why? It seems to play pretty fair to me. As a matter of fact, after all of the bonuses were played, Dunover came out with a small profit.

 

[nikantw]

The 2nd video makes it look even worse than the first. I have asked you UKGC to comment on this slot

There are much bigger problems out there. I don't even think Extra Chilli has a problem.
You will end up with 2.00 max bet and 5,000 max win if you keep pushing the rules in that direction.

 

[goatwack]

Not sure how many big wins are to be had with the bonus at (let's face it) eight spins, I'd imagine the base game is where it's at.

12 spins is a prerequisite on a game like this, I don't believe eight to be sufficient, although as we know the cascades can go on little streaks to create an additional 8-10 spins 'artificially' on a good day

 

[bluebirdy]

Why? It seems to play pretty fair to me. As a matter of fact, after all of the bonuses were played, Dunover came out with a small profit.

All BTG games can play piss poor on features and bonanza is the worst we all Know that game can be a right fucker. now adding a buy feature and a gamble feature is just wrong. Tell me how pissing away 8 spins for 4 is a good thing? then gamble again for a 4 more (even dunover in his first video was shocked and thought he had 4 spins to play after his first gamble).

whats the odds you getting a good result after x amount of gambles and losses. in dunovers first video he lost 3 gambles straight away, So if that was real money he would be chasing X amount of money after 1 min play time 1 MIN. with white rabbit atleast you get to play the free spins and how many of them was piss poor add a gamble to that game and its a joke.

now lets say you do get max spins whats the odd you getting a good result to cover all your gambles. if its the same as bonanza you pretty much fucked.

yes you do have option to buy then gamble or to just buy but cant you see this being a problem with weaker gamblers?.


Plenty of moans in the bonanza thread this one going to be a lot more.

 

[bluebirdy]

There are much bigger problems out there. I don't even think Extra Chilli has a problem.
You will end up with 2.00 max bet and 5,000 max win if you keep pushing the rules in that direction.

You really cant see that gamble option being a problem.

 

[bluebirdy]

Why? It seems to play pretty fair to me. As a matter of fact, after all of the bonuses were played, Dunover came out with a small profit.

how many times you moaned at bonanza?. wonder what you going to be like after you lose on the gamble feature

 

[goatwack]

I do agree that the way the gamble feature is set up (it looks like to be generally unfavourable) the player will forever be chasing their 'lost' free spins, especially knowing that 12 is preferable to 8, and that 12 is engrained in every Bonanza player.

There are many sly factors at work here that go beyond a simple gamble feature.....

 

[The Dude]

Just to interject - how about an extra chill in the chilli thread.

To insinuate that Dunover is required to say nice things about a slot (to get early access) would not make much sense. I've seen him tear into slot games regardless - and as far as I can tell, he holds no bias besides some favorites, but he makes this known. It would be ludicrous for a software developer to make nicety a condition for a review - it would be a harakiri move by the software developer because the fora loves a scandal. And Dunover likes a good laugh.

 

[interlog]

how many times you moaned at bonanza?. wonder what you going to be like after you lose on the gamble feature

I have done my fair share of moaning at Bonanza. But I learned to respect the slot. I have been a happier bunny after that.

 

[dunover]

Watched both of the review videos now and it does appear to be an interesting game to be played.

Not sure about the gamble feature though. You need the spins to build the multiplier for a decent win. But I would be kicking myself gambling it two times and then not getting any spins during the bonus (starting from a 3 scatter drop in), especially after having waited ages for the bonus round.

Dunover, how does the base game behave itself? Does it keep you going akin to Bonanza?

Yes, it's pretty much the same as far as I have seen. You have a twice-as-frequent random occurrence of the feature and half the average 100x that Bonanza gives. Of course if you 50-50 gamble every feature that dropped in to 12 spins then effectively it's halving that frequency back to 460 that Bonanza has and doubling the average feature returns to 100x on average. The initial 50-50 is almost like choosing the volatility of the feature.

 

[Chipkin9]

I (perhaps unwisely) will respond your insinuation-laden and usual borderline flaming negativity:

1. Conveniently you mislead with that post by deliberately ignoring the fact that for the first 10x£50 I demonstrated with no feature gamble my net returns were around 750-800, a substantial gain.

2. The second section of 10 using gamble were not as successful but as a whole over the whole 20 I broke about even, or a small gain IIRC.

3. My video reviews have always attempted to fully explain a new slot and if I think it's awful or good I'll say so - every time. Look at what I thought about BTG's dreadful Temple Quest to remind yourself. Extra Chilli is similar to Bonanza and it's no secret on here or YT I love that slot, so wouldn't it be reasonable to expect me to like this one?

I get used to feeding the trolls on YT comments, but on here I expected better.

To be fair, being ahead by 750-800 is not a substantial gain when you are spinning at £50, that is being ahead by 15-16x.

This game definitely isn't for me. You are not really going to get ahead by much ever on these crap buy in feature slots; and in the end you are just going to get screwed over Big Time.

I feel alot of people are going to fall for this bullshit, because that's all it is; a gimmick for the naive and impatient to screw them over quicker.

That's all I really have to say about these buy a feature slots...they are dangerous and malicious in their intent.

 

[interlog]

To be fair, being ahead by 750-800 is not a substantial gain when you are spinning at £50, that is being ahead by 15-16x.

This game definitely isn't for me. You are not really going to get ahead by much ever on these crap buy in feature slots; and in the end you are just going to get screwed over Big Time.

I feel alot of people are going to fall for this bullshit, because that's all it is; a gimmick for the naive and impatient to screw them over quicker.

That's all I really have to say about these buy a feature slots...they are dangerous and malicious in their intent.

That 500+x win could have dropped in naturally. That is the problem with these feature buys. How do you calculate the multiplier win. Against the buy in or the spin value? I think it should be the latter because of the reason given.

You could have spent £20 to get the feature naturally and win £200. So is it 200x or 10x? You would say it is 200x so no different than saying the same when buying it at £50.

 

[Chipkin9]

That 500+x win could have dropped in naturally. That is the problem with these feature buys. How do you calculate the multiplier win. Against the buy in or the spin value? I think it should be the latter because of the reason given.

You could have spent £20 to get the feature naturally and win £200. So is it 200x or 10x? You would say it is 200x so no different than saying the same when buying it at £50.

I appreciate and understand what you're saying...but the simple fact is it isn't the same at all. His total bet was £50, He hit a Monster £1440 in one of the bonus rounds. The win was exactly 29.8x his total bet. That's a fact.

If on the other hand he did hit it naturally doing £1 spins and not buying features and gambling spins, then his win would have been 1440x total bet. There is a difference, and it demonstrates why you are best off not buying the feature.

 

[interlog]

I appreciate and understand what you're saying...but the simple fact is it isn't the same at all. His total bet was £50, He hit a Monster £1440 in one of the bonus rounds. The win was exactly 29.8x his total bet. That's a fact.

If on the other hand he did hit it naturally doing £1 spins and not buying feature and gambling spins, then his win would have been 1440x total bet. There is a difference, and it demonstrates why you are best off not buying the feature.

But that win may have cost you £51 so you would have been £1 worse off.

The buy a bonus cuts out the tedious play getting the bonus and could be more economical

 

[Chipkin9]

But that win may have cost you £51 so you would have been £1 worse off.

The buy a bonus cuts out the tedious play getting the bonus and could be more economical

It's still not the same Interlog. There is a difference between total bet and total loss.

For example...You lose 100x (£30) on Immortal romance. You then hit/win 101x on Immrtoal romance on £0.30 and win back £30.30. Are you now going to start saying only 1x was won and not 101x? That's exactly what you are trying to say and it's wrong.

I'm sorry, and I'm definitely not trying to be argumentative, but it is simply wrong.

When your total bet is £50 and you win £1440...it's a 29.8x win. There are no two ways about this.

If you are spinning at £1 and lose £200, and then win £201. You win 201x. Not 1x.

Cost is irrelevant.

 

[nikantw]

Tell me how pissing away 8 spins for 4 is a good thing? whats the odds you getting a good result after x amount of gambles and losses.

The odds are almost 97%. You forget that each additional spin has much higher potential because of the multiplier.

.... cant you see this being a problem with weaker gamblers?.

You really cant see that gamble option being a problem.

Not the same thing as saying not a problem that UKGC should look at.
We have 7 pages already in the largest forum advising people to be careful, that is all that needs to be done. I will explain more later.

I appreciate and understand what you're saying...but the simple fact is it isn't the same at all. His total bet was £50, He hit a Monster £1440 in one of the bonus rounds. The win was exactly 29.8x his total bet. That's a fact.

If on the other hand he did hit it naturally doing £1 spins and not buying features and gambling spins, then his win would have been 1440x total bet.

For a low roller there is no buy or gamble features. Too expensive. Whithout using those this is Bonanza with double bonuses that pay half on average. Kind of like a dream come true for many out there.

As for the high rollers, they have many new options. Basically they can choose higher volatility and faster play, or lower volatility with slower play and higher TRTP (using the buy and gamble features). I base this using your (a bet is a bet) argument, so if you want to make a 20 bet you can make a spin of 20 or buy a feature worth 20.

 

[snorky510238]

Buy in features are not put there to benefit us financially be sure of that.Given that if you continuously play a game you are guaranteed to lose all it does is give you the option to lose your money faster.It is a slippery slope to go down if you ask me.

 

[interlog]

It's still not the same Interlog. There is a difference between total bet and total loss.

For example...You lose 100x (£30) on Immortal romance. You then hit/win 101x on Immrtoal romance on £0.30 and win back £30.30. Are you now going to start saying only 1x was won and not 101x? That's exactly what you are trying to say and it's wrong.

I'm sorry, and I'm definitely not trying to be argumentative, but it is simply wrong.

When your total bet is £50 and you win £1440...it's a 29.8x win. There are no two ways about this.

If you are spinning at £1 and lose £200, and then win £201. You win 201x. Not 1x.

Cost is irrelevant.

Well if cost is irrelevant in order to trigger the feature then why the disagreement? You have a bonus at the spin value and the win is divided by that spin value. And the value of the spin is £1 irrespective if triggered naturally or bought.

 

[Jono777]

BTG have simply read the Bonanza comments regarding "xxxxx" amounts of spins and STILL no feature and simply capitalised upon this collective 'moan' - In a very clever (or should that be devious) way of course

Admit I like their slots, their ethics another discussion, another time, another place..........

 

[smart_croatia]

give me the T +4+4+4....

 

[theapple]

That 500+x win could have dropped in naturally. That is the problem with these feature buys. How do you calculate the multiplier win. Against the buy in or the spin value? I think it should be the latter because of the reason given.

You could have spent £20 to get the feature naturally and win £200. So is it 200x or 10x? You would say it is 200x so no different than saying the same when buying it at £50.

could have is they keyword here. I still cant believe people are discussing this

you spent $50 to start a feature.

its $50. not $5, not $0,50 it was $50. you spent $50 to make that spin, imo its ridiculous its even discussed on forums like this one.

I dont remember anyone saying you are not spinning $50 on big bet games where you pay $30 - $50 to start a feature but all out of sudden if you use $50 or $100 on BTG game its not $50 or $100 but 1/100th of it because of reasons.

As i see it there are 2 versions of explanation given by people who say its "not $100 but $1":
a) you might have spent a $100 to make that spin but its not really $100 but 100 times $1. ?!?!
b) its actually $1 it just cost you 100 times that much to start a feature

both are equally ridiculous really. I know you could have waited 27574 spins to actually get the feature and therefore you might be better off buying it instead, but that doesnt mean spending $100 is not what it looks like.

 

[bluebirdy]

The odds are almost 97%. You forget that each additional spin has much higher potential because of the multiplier.

how many did dunover win?. and did you see the bad results (on the gamble feature)

1 lost £50
2 lost £50
3 Won £60 1.2x
4 lost £50
5 Lost £50
6 lost £50
7 won £232 4.3 x bet
8 lost £42.60
9 Lost £19
10 Lost £50
bet £1000 won 1466 1.4 x bet
sry but buy and gamble is shit that is typical BTG stats and i reckon will get a lot worse for some people.

Not the same thing as saying not a problem that UKGC should look at.
We have 7 pages already in the largest forum advising people to be careful, that is all that needs to be done. I will explain more later.

nothing to explain Slots like this should not be allowed and as for BTG making it shows all they care about now is profit and dont give a flying f about it and how they get there money
responsible gambling my arse.

For a low roller there is no buy or gamble features. Too expensive. Whithout using those this is Bonanza with double bonuses that pay half on average. Kind of like a dream come true for many out there.

sry but if its true these features come in more often then why would there be a need for a buy feature?.

As for the high rollers, they have many new options. Basically they can choose higher volatility and faster play, or lower volatility with slower play and higher TRTP (using the buy and gamble features). I base this using your (a bet is a bet) argument, so if you want to make a 20 bet you can make a spin of 20 or buy a feature worth 20.

Sry but it has nothing to do with just high rollers or am i mistaken do problem gamblers only bet in small amounts?. im confused with that

 

[interlog]

could have is they keyword here. I still cant believe people are discussing this

you spent $50 to start a feature.

its $50. not $5, not $0,50 it was $50. you spent $50 to make that spin, imo its ridiculous its even discussed on forums like this one.

I dont remember anyone saying you are not spinning $50 on big bet games where you pay $30 - $50 to start a feature but all out of sudden if you use $50 or $100 on BTG game its not $50 or $100 but 1/100th of it because of reasons.

As i see it there are 2 versions of explanation given by people who say its "not $100 but $1":
a) you might have spent a $100 to make that spin but its not really $100 but 100 times $1. ?!?!
b) its actually $1 it just cost you 100 times that much to start a feature

both are equally ridiculous really. I know you could have waited 27574 spins to actually get the feature and therefore you might be better off buying it instead, but that doesnt mean spending $100 is not what it looks like.

The disagreement is how you calculate the multiplier win not how much it has cost you. It spins at £1 not £50 when buying the £1 feature.

 

[shadow123]

Must be some horrendous maths involved if the feature spin combinations are not controlled.
Seems a bit fishy to me that 8 spins are worth 50x and 12 spins worth 100x (minus the vtp 3 odd percent)
Sounds too exact bearing in mind that every spin between 9 and 12 has a different and increasing potential value.
Would not know where to start with the calculations. but the 12 spin feature is identical to bonanza so that should be correct.
Funny how the 8 is exactly half.Maybe its me.

 

[bluebirdy]

The disagreement is how you calculate the multiplier win not how much it has cost you. It spins at £1 not £50 when buying the £1 feature.

if you buy feature at £50 and win £200 its 4 x cant be simpler

 

[interlog]

if you buy feature at £50 and win £200 its 4 x cant be simpler

It costs £50.

How many times have you said it has cost me £x to trigger the feature? Dunover says it many a times.

 

[colinsunderland]

It costs £50.

How many times have you said it has cost me £x to trigger the feature? Dunover says it many a times.

According to casinos, using white rabbit as an example, the stake would be £50, as you can't buy a feature using a bonus as it exceeds max stake. Therefore, clearly, the stake is £50/£100 etc.

 

[Jono777]

Despite what I said earlier - I feel it is 'x' whatever your stake is £500 Payout @ £1 = 500x

All the feature buy does (more or less) is cut out or "fast forward" the next 50 spins, remove all the (unnecessary) small wins, dead spins etc and get to the point, the thing we all sit here spinning for.

 

[colinsunderland]

Despite what I said earlier - I feel it is 'x' whatever your stake is £500 Payout @ £1 = 500x

All the feature buy does (more or less) is cut out or "fast forward" the next 50 spins, remove all the (unnecessary) small wins, dead spins etc and get to the point, the thing we all sit here spinning for.

Yes, thats right you are basically doing 50 spins with an RTP of 0.00% to guarantee a bonus at the end