 | LanceRoxas (41)
07/23/2005 | I normally don't agree with someone when they say this place sucks but man does it. The river boat gambling in Missouri was one step above church bingo with more degenerates. Maybe I'm a snob but I've been to numerous casinos, from Foxwoods in Connecticut to resorts in Puerto Rico- I go to Las Vegas every year and I grew up 40 minutes from Atlantic City NJ- and St Louis was easily the worst! The boat was hot a muggy inside. You needed to sign up for a gambling card before entering. The circulation was horrible and the roulette tables were stained and nasty- and without the normal digital boards to display the previous numbers. But all that aside it was the people who you were forced to rub elbows with- drunk rednecks and dirtballs betting the rent money (literally), that made this such a poor experience.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | alty6905 (1)
09/10/2003 | St. Louis is already a weak city for any reason, especially tourism, so you must be pretty desperate to come here for gambling. But three of our casinos are on riverboats. The Casino Queen is the most classic looking standard double-paddle wheel with an onshore hotel. The Alton Bell is a smaller version of the Queen with an ugly paint job. The Admiral is a silver, streamlined, post modern boat that is about fifty years old and is permanently moored, but is a St. Louis landmark. The other two biggies, Harrahs and Ameristar, are large ugly corporate casinoes way out in the county. Harrahs made a big fuss because they didn't want to build a casino on the Mississippi or Missouri, but on land instead, while Ameristar is on the Missouri but doesn't have a boat. Worse is that Ameristar replaced the St. Charles Casino, which was another attractive steamer.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
