[NLVgal]

I really like it when the Buzz gets snarky. (childish, unashamed, giggle here)

[dynimagelv]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

I really like it when the Buzz gets snarky. (childish, unashamed, giggle here)

BUZZARD breath.....snarky......say it isnt so joe......

[MDrenter223]

Originally Posted by dynimagelv

WOWWWWWWWWW the REAL Monte Carlo......mmmmmmmmmmm

Yeh right....how many joints n how much do they rake in.....

Name dropping the "REAL" monte carlo doesnt gain much headway in Las Vegas......if we wanted a Monte Carlo we'd build one.....

OH....Yeh....right....we did.

Originally Posted by von949

I gambled in the real Venice Italy and no one gave me a cookie so...yeah I see your point.

Originally Posted by Buzz123

We are sooooo impressed. Thanks for sharing.

Guys, I threw the smiley up lighten up the message, I don't really think that one casino (although a really nice one) really compares to the dozens of amazingly designed casinos on the strip. I don't gamble in Vegas because there is so much else to do (food, shows, awesome rockclimbing...).

I like Vegas, and just might buy a house out there in a few months, sorry if I came off as elitist, it wasn't my intention.

[ScoopLV]

I tend to agree -- Monte Carlo has a distinct look to it. Las Vegas will never be Monte Carlo, because we're not old enough or European enough. But Monte Carlo will never be Las Vegas, either.

The problem started when we quit trying to be Las Vegas and started trying to be an adult version of Epcot Center. These "theme" resorts are dumb. NYNY, Paris, Venetian, Luxor -- all dumb ideas. Las Vegas should look like Las Vegas -- neon, loads of lights and flash. Let Monte Carlo look like Monte Carlo. Las Vegas should stick to what it's good at.

[jlawrence01]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

My biggest beef is that the games themselves are BORING. Take ANY of those table games -- would you play them if there wasn't money involved? Hell no. Nobody would. They're about as interesting as watching paint dry.

Agreed.

I have a blackjack simulation on my computer and can play 5-6 hands per minute without dealing with drunks or having someone blow smoke in my face.

I can play blackjack for hours in a casino but after 30 minutes, I am bored as the pace of the game is so darned slow, especially at the shuffles.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I tend to agree -- Monte Carlo has a distinct look to it. Las Vegas will never be Monte Carlo, because we're not old enough or European enough. But Monte Carlo will never be Las Vegas, either.

The problem started when we quit trying to be Las Vegas and started trying to be an adult version of Epcot Center. These "theme" resorts are dumb. NYNY, Paris, Venetian, Luxor -- all dumb ideas. Las Vegas should look like Las Vegas -- neon, loads of lights and flash. Let Monte Carlo look like Monte Carlo. Las Vegas should stick to what it's good at.

I have gambled to one extent or the other in Monte Carlo and elsewhere in Europe. It is far below the general level of a high end Vegas Casino not to speak of the high end private rooms.

Much of Europe is quite nice, particularly for a change. My wife loves the villages of Alsace-Loraine. I prefer Holland and German cities - give me a German altstadt any time for quaint.

The strange thing is the odd things that click - a birthday party for a young German at a Japanese Restaurant in the shadow of the Cathedral in Cologne. You never know but I will stick to the Urban.

[MadManofBethesda]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

My biggest beef is that the games themselves are BORING.

I just love when non-gamblers try to tell those of us who enjoy it that the activity is boring. It would be akin to me telling you that cooking is a horribly mundane, yet necessary chore equivalent to doing the laundry or cleaning a bathroom. It may feel like that to me (and countless others), but obviously not to those of you who love to cook.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

And no casino offers action on bridge, hearts or cribbage. Games that require some skill aren't acceptable for wagering.

Hmmm, so you don't believe that there is "some skill" involved in playing poker, huh? I'd love to put your theory to test in a few heads-up matches.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Even poker is a boring game when money isn't involved. The professionals basically grind out a living playing cards. "Grinding out a living" doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

I wonder if you gave people a choice between sitting in a comfortable chair in an air-conditioned cardroom with cocktail servers and waitresses at their beck and call bringing them free food and drink while playing poker for X number of hours a week, or standing on your feet working in a kitchen preparing food for other people to enjoy during those same hours, which activity would be considered more of a grind?

And yes, I realize that you enjoy cooking and don't consider it a grind. Just as gamblers don't consider playing casino games to be boring activities.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda

Hmmm, so you don't believe that there is "some skill" involved in playing poker, huh? I'd love to put your theory to test in a few heads-up matches.

Throw away the money, and Texas Hold'em isn't any more difficult than playing "war." My stated point, which you have of course ignored, is that if money wasn't involved NOBODY would play these games.

When was the last time friends got together on a Friday evening and played a spirited game of roulette? And when was the last time casinos offered action on Scrabble? Games of skill aren't played in casinos, for obvious reasons.

[BBMW]

I have a relative by marriage who is a big gambler (rated all over the place in Vegas.) He went to Monte Carlo. He was unimpressed (at least from a gambling perspective.) He didn't think it could hold a candle to Vegas.

It's a nice looking city in a spectacular setting. But that could describe a lot of European cities. But if you're looking for excitement (or at least gambling action), it seems not so much.

But then again, you don't care about that.

If Vegas is getting any competition as a world gambling center (and it is), it would be from Macau.

As far as the theme thing goes, it depends on how they do it. Bellagio was themed, but the theme is a bit obscure (Lake Como), and they didn't get too carried away with it, so it worked. The Venetian? Eh. I was there recently, and it comes off kind of cheap and tacky, especially since they tried to knock off real and well known landmarks. Same with Paris and NYNY (I live in New York, so NYNY has no appeal.)

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

I tend to agree -- Monte Carlo has a distinct look to it. Las Vegas will never be Monte Carlo, because we're not old enough or European enough. But Monte Carlo will never be Las Vegas, either.

The problem started when we quit trying to be Las Vegas and started trying to be an adult version of Epcot Center. These "theme" resorts are dumb. NYNY, Paris, Venetian, Luxor -- all dumb ideas. Las Vegas should look like Las Vegas -- neon, loads of lights and flash. Let Monte Carlo look like Monte Carlo. Las Vegas should stick to what it's good at.

[lvoc]

I happen to like both NY/NY and Paris. While I don't live in NYC my NY creds are pretty good. Born in Manhattan and graduated from college there. I also could do a gang bang one day tour of Manhattan via subway and the SI Ferry.

The themes are light duty but the places are nice to spend time. I do like Bellagio, Wynn and particularly Mandalay Bay better but all can't be on the top of the list.