Casino at Monte Carlo, Las Vegas, Annoy

OpinionWell's Blog

Home » United States » Nevada » Las Vegas Destinations » Las Vegas Hotels » Casino at Monte Carlo

OpinionWell
Rank

27th

Out of 481

Casino at Monte Carlo	Average Price: $112 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

3770 Las Vegas Blvd S

Las Vegas, 89109 View map

4-Star Hotel Rank: 9 of 28
Average review rating: 3.51

OpinionWell Value Index: 5

Traveler reviews analyzed: BedBugRegistry (22) , Expedia (106) , MyTravelGuide (932) , Travelocity (3) , TripAdvisor (2819) , YahooTravel (283)

SAFE TO BOOK ? (4/5 issues found)

Is this hotel safe to book? See the trends in negative comments below to find out the real deal before you commit:

Construction:	There are recent comments about Construction.
Noise:	Recent comments complained about noise.
Room Smell:	Recent comments complained about room smell.
Parking Fees:	No recent comments about parking fees were found.
Bed Bugs:	Recent comments complained about bed bugs.

Search reviews for other problems

Keyword Cloud

The hotel review keyword cloud displays the words commonly used to describe the features and services of this hotel. Select a word and explore.

All Positive Negative

Keyword Search

annoy (75) avoid (60) awful (52) bad (313) bed bugs (37) big deal (38) broken (34) chipped (28) complain (170) complaint (97) crap (29) dated (88) difficult (34) dirty (138) disappoint (183) disgust (38) disturbing (33) downside (22) expensive (144) filthy (30) gross (43) hard (131) hardly (24) horrible (68) inconvenient (31) issue (159) lack (47) loud (226) mistake (27) mold (34) negative (98) noise (459) noisy (115) outdated (51) overpriced (38) poor (71) pricey (38) problem (315) ridiculous (39) rock (56) rude (79) slow (101) smell (266) stain (24) terrible (84) uncomfortable (39) unfortunate (55) worn (94) worst (71) wrong (71)

Annoy

Appears in 91 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Annoy:
$ (4) bed (3) construction (7) fee (4) good (4) hotel (8) housekeeping (5) liked (4) loud (8) most (3) music (6) night (4) noise (9) not (13) pool (11) room (6) shower (4) staff (3) useful (3) walking (5)

Users can vote for helpful comments, which are saved in the Most helpful section.

Sort by:

See all

1. Also, housekeeping does not get to your room until after 2 pm each day which was kind of annoying.

"Needs work but acceptable " Read full review on TripAdvisor 5/19/2012 Vote

2. The shower head is a little annoying, I'm 6ft tall and have to duck to use it as you cannot take it off the wall.

"Great. If you're here to party and sleep isn't a priority! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 5/14/2012 Vote

3. not enough to keep me awake but still annoying.

"3 1/2 stars really. Very nice but ease up on the police state pool entrance. " Read full review on TripAdvisor 5/12/2012 Vote

4. My only complaint about the room is that our drape let just enough light in to be annoying in the morning, and the bathroom didn't seem to have an exhaust fan.

"Bright, Airy, Non-Smoky, Rooms slightly dated " Read full review on TripAdvisor 5/11/2012 Vote

5. Fairly annoying in Vegas.

"Great basic stay " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/24/2012 Vote

6. The shower head was annoying.

"Decent price, good for just sleeping " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/22/2012 Vote

7. Last two days shower had only lukewarm water, after we called housekeeping again they sounded annoyed and disinterested.

"Disappointing Stay " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/15/2012 Vote

8. Overall our stay was good but we had enough little problems that it became annoying.

"Great value on strip but lacks attention to details " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/6/2012 Vote

9. Lifts were spilt into different levels so you couldn't travel between floors if you had friends on another level, you had to go down to the foyer to go back up- which was annoying but not the end of the world.

"Value for money " Read full review on TripAdvisor 1/29/2012 Vote

10. I found the shower a bit annoying but loved the place.

"Amazing Holiday " Read full review on TripAdvisor 1/22/2012 Vote