Whatever flaws people may think Flamingo has from a hotel perspective (not many IMO) you cant beat that location. if you find you like hanging out at some of the more modern places you can still do that while spending half as much to sleep at Flamingo. Why people cough up $200/night to stay at Cosmopolitan is beyond me.
I agree Been staying at Flamingo for years Plus if you log on to
harrahs total rewards with your players card(better if you have a companions number as well) Most likely you will get comp
especially weekdays I like not only location and free rooms.
also parking.It can often be a challenge to find a spot Yet it's a short
Distance into casino thus your room.
I know, right?? It's actually really nice to stay in flamingo instead. It costs cheaper but it's actually pretty nice as well. The location is still accessible and the rooms and facilities are pretty nice. If you're just staying fr a vacation, I would really have to suggest that people do learn that it's actually nice to stay in cheaper hotels so that you can have more budget as you explore the place, right? However, if you really are rich and if you really saved up for a nice quality hotel, then why nit? Still, I think these are practical.
People who don't understand staying at Cosmo probably never stayed there. If you go to Vegas once or twice a year, the Flamingo would not be on my list. I live here and stay there once-in-a-while because it is comped and is a good location.
Part of that is you get .75 ounce of low quality alcohol served in a plastic cup when the waitress is not dealing wtih a huge group of non-players huddled around one guy playing $1.25 a hand. Flamingo rooms are fine, but dated...you might get a view of something other than Ballys. You can eat at a few places that you could eat at back home including Jonny Rockets, a Panda Express knock-off, a sub shop or get a slice of pizza. The new steakhouse has gotten mixed reviews.
Cosmo gives you a view of something you would like to see and you can see from the outside balcony where you can watch the world go by. You get a premium drink in a glass and they are easy to get. You can look up the top-level food choices.
Nothing wrong with the Flamingo, but let's no try to compare the two and thinking the extra $$ is not getting you much better value.
Originally posted by: Robert Hirst
People who don't understand staying at Cosmo probably never stayed there. If you go to Vegas once or twice a year, the Flamingo would not be on my list. I live here and stay there once-in-a-while because it is comped and is a good location.
Part of that is you get .75 ounce of low quality alcohol served in a plastic cup when the waitress is not dealing wtih a huge group of non-players huddled around one guy playing $1.25 a hand. Flamingo rooms are fine, but dated...you might get a view of something other than Ballys. You can eat at a few places that you could eat at back home including Jonny Rockets, a Panda Express knock-off, a sub shop or get a slice of pizza. The new steakhouse has gotten mixed reviews.
Cosmo gives you a view of something you would like to see and you can see from the outside balcony where you can watch the world go by. You get a premium drink in a glass and they are easy to get. You can look up the top-level food choices.
Nothing wrong with the Flamingo, but let's no try to compare the two and thinking the extra $$ is not getting you much better value.
Robert, let me see if I understand you correctly. The place which is $2000 for a three night weekend is nicer than the place which costs $500?
Originally posted by: Robert Hirst
People who don't understand staying at Cosmo probably never stayed there. If you go to Vegas once or twice a year, the Flamingo would not be on my list. I live here and stay there once-in-a-while because it is comped and is a good location.
Part of that is you get .75 ounce of low quality alcohol served in a plastic cup when the waitress is not dealing wtih a huge group of non-players huddled around one guy playing $1.25 a hand. Flamingo rooms are fine, but dated...you might get a view of something other than Ballys. You can eat at a few places that you could eat at back home including Jonny Rockets, a Panda Express knock-off, a sub shop or get a slice of pizza. The new steakhouse has gotten mixed reviews.
Cosmo gives you a view of something you would like to see and you can see from the outside balcony where you can watch the world go by. You get a premium drink in a glass and they are easy to get. You can look up the top-level food choices.
Nothing wrong with the Flamingo, but let's no try to compare the two and thinking the extra $$ is not getting you much better value.
I agree with your observations about quality....but here's the thing: There's no law that requires to eat, drink, play, and generally hang out at the same resort you sleep in. So you can enjoy all of the upper echelon experiences at Cosmo while spending half the price to sleep across the street at Flamingo. That's all I'm saying.
I think it's silly to pay for anything more than a good night's sleep. After all, how much time are you going to be spending in your hotel room?
Let's not forget that as PJ said, you can walk a short distance to experience all those high-end amenities, if you wish--such as that premium drink that will cost you $25. Every single fancy-ass Strip experience will cost you, and you'll usually pay through the nose, so why not pick and choose those experiences instead of staying at a horribly expensive megaresort and in essence, paying for all those experiences up front whether you wind up actually enjoying them or not?
There's another consideration for me, personally, that may not matter to anyone else: intrinsic value. A $200 room at the Flaming O and a $500 room at the Cosmo both contain a bed or beds, a TV, a shower, a toilet, etc. etc. Am I getting $300 more worth of toilet, etc. if I stay at the Cosmo? To me, this kind of expenditure is like taking a limo from the airport instead of a cab.
Naturally, there are some demographics for whom that $300 difference isn't a consideration, but I doubt I could ever stomach coughing up $500 for a hotel room even if I was as wealthy as Bill Gates. Anyone who wishes to gratuitously insult me now can call me cheap.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I think it's silly to pay for anything more than a good night's sleep. After all, how much time are you going to be spending in your hotel room?
Let's not forget that as PJ said, you can walk a short distance to experience all those high-end amenities, if you wish--such as that premium drink that will cost you $25. Every single fancy-ass Strip experience will cost you, and you'll usually pay through the nose, so why not pick and choose those experiences instead of staying at a horribly expensive megaresort and in essence, paying for all those experiences up front whether you wind up actually enjoying them or not?
There's another consideration for me, personally, that may not matter to anyone else: intrinsic value. A $200 room at the Flaming O and a $500 room at the Cosmo both contain a bed or beds, a TV, a shower, a toilet, etc. etc. Am I getting $300 more worth of toilet, etc. if I stay at the Cosmo? To me, this kind of expenditure is like taking a limo from the airport instead of a cab.
Naturally, there are some demographics for whom that $300 difference isn't a consideration, but I doubt I could ever stomach coughing up $500 for a hotel room even if I was as wealthy as Bill Gates. Anyone who wishes to gratuitously insult me now can call me cheap.
Kevin, one of my best friends for the past 47 years has a net worth of about $25 million. Do you ever consider another persons situation when making your comments on worth? He doesn't flinch at $1000 per night for a place, while I would choke on the concept.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Kevin, one of my best friends for the past 47 years has a net worth of about $25 million. Do you ever consider another persons situation when making your comments on worth? He doesn't flinch at $1000 per night for a place, while I would choke on the concept.
You don't read the stuff I post very carefully before criticizing it, do you? I used the pronouns I and me. I was talking about how I feel. I also said that there are some people who don't care about price.
Your gay spendy friend probably didn't get to be a millionaire by not caring about the price of things, though. I strongly suspect that even he would be bothered by paying five times as much for something as it's worth. But who knows. However he feels is irrelevant to what I said about my own point of view.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
You don't read the stuff I post very carefully before criticizing it, do you? I used the pronouns I and me. I was talking about how I feel. I also said that there are some people who don't care about price.
Your gay spendy friend probably didn't get to be a millionaire by not caring about the price of things, though. I strongly suspect that even he would be bothered by paying five times as much for something as it's worth. But who knows. However he feels is irrelevant to what I said about my own point of view.
You did it once again. You might consider reading your second sentence, second paragraph. Worth differs from person to person, and that's what you don't understand.
