1. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  2. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Monte Carlo Jackpot Pale - Monte Carlo Casino Pub & Brewery

Not Rated.
Monte Carlo Jackpot PaleMonte Carlo Jackpot Pale

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
75
okay

21 Ratings
THE BROS
-
no score

(send 'em beer!)
Ratings: 21
Reviews: 20
rAvg: 3.09
pDev: 15.53%
Wants: 0
Gots: 0 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Monte Carlo Casino Pub & Brewery
Nevada, United States

Style | ABV
American IPA |  5.60% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

No notes at this time.

(Beer added by: pezoids on 02-06-2003)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
Ratings: 21 | Reviews: 20 | Display Reviews Only:
Reviews by packetknife:
Photo of packetknife
2.75/5  rDev -11%
look: 3 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Could've been a contender! This one raised my expectations with the strong nose. The pour was mediocre clean dark yellow with an off-white head that lingered. The nose was strong with hops, citrus, and acidity that floating up. The taste failed though as the balancing malts were non-existent and left you a bit too sour and dry. The feel was OK if you could manage to ignore the bitterness.

packetknife, Aug 02, 2005
More User Reviews:
Photo of Dmann
3.5/5  rDev +13.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Another beer I tried on my Vegas trip. This one poured a dark orange color with a nice sticky white head that stayed till the finnish. The smell was slightly sweet with a touch of carmel. The taste was quite sweet, but not in a bad way. The carmel scents came out in the taste and dominated for the most part aside from the light hoppiness. I agree with the others in that this is definantly not an IPA. But regardless of what the label says, it is a very tasty beer. If this beer just had a touch more hops it would be very good, as it stands now it is just above average.

Dmann, Apr 09, 2004
Photo of bditty187
3.23/5  rDev +4.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Amber, coppery-gold in hue, an off-white head topped the beer. At the maximum the head was hardly a half finger in height. Then it quickly faded away. No animation was noticed, since this aspect was lacking and the head faded quickly the beer soon looked dead in my glass. Subsequent lacing was webby but prevalent. The nose has an interesting hoppy aroma. It is citrusy with a minty undercurrent. Then it becomes very fruity with tangerines, and melons. Then a hint of some grassy aromas is found, which was odd because they didn’t flow with the sweetness. Candied, caramel maltiness adds more “complexity” to the nose. The bouquet is decent, it has some interesting aromas but it isn’t inviting like I’d want an IPA to be. More hops would help. So would a clear objective. The palate is harsher than it should be. It is raw and unrefined yet not very flavorful. The bitterness is at the back, towards the finish. It is not intense or flavorful but the bitterness is wide. Once the tongue gets a bit of a sting some citrus flavors follow. The beginning of this beer is largely empty; there is some sweet minty flavors, caramel, candied sugar. There is no way this beer is an IPA, it is an Amber Ale of sorts with a funky twist. In a way this beer is flawed yet these oddities provide the only redeeming qualities. It is good enough. Medium/medium-light in body, the carbonation is low and by the end it becomes a little watery. The mouthfeel is acceptable. This is a decent beer. It is drinkable but I think I’d get tired of this after a few. My Dad brought this back as part of a sampler six-pack. Thanks for the effort Dad!

bditty187, Sep 08, 2004
Photo of Phyl21ca
2.03/5  rDev -34.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Bottle: Poured a hazy/cloudy pale yellow color ale with a small bubbly head with minimal retention. Aroma of citrus hops is a bit faint for the style. Taste is dominated by faint citrus hops with some weak malt. This beer is definitely lacking character and this is also the worst beer that I have taste from this brewery.

Phyl21ca, Oct 31, 2006
Photo of Boilermaker88
2.98/5  rDev -3.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

The fourth of five in a mixed six-pack my brother picked up for me while he was in Sin City. Right across the bottom of the label it said "India Pale Ale" so that's what I had my mind and tastebuds set to.
Poured from the 12oz bottle into a standard pint glass, this "IPA" had a see-through amber color with large random clumps of carbonation. A small white head briefly flared before beating a hasty retreat.
The nose was sweet; of caramel and malt but the sought-after citrusy, maybe piney aroma I'm come to love in an IPA were AWOL. Oh sure, there was some token citrus aroma but not the pungent, sinus-clearing kind of scent I want to bury my snoot into.
The taste was a simple replay of the nose. Sweetly malty with some huskiness overlaid by a substantial caramel and toffee flavor up front, a bit of a "dead" zone mid-palate, and a real modest citrusy tang in the finish but nothing as bittered as what I've come to expect in an IPA. The feel was medium in body, thin and a bit watery.
Well, well, well, my suspicions were confirmed as I got on BA to enter in this review. Monte Carlo's Jackpot Pale (India Pale Ale) is actually listed as an American Pale Ale here. Yes, it's not an IPA, at least not in the same vein as many of today's IPA's have evolved. This strikes closer to a sweeter version of SNPA although SNPA is more hopped than this. Once you get your head around the idea that it's not an IPA, it's decently drinkable but nothing beyond the ordinary.

Boilermaker88, Aug 03, 2004
Photo of goz
3.23/5  rDev +4.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Copper pour, small head with ok lacing. Aroma is pine, citrus, a little spicey. Flavor is pretty well balanced with some malt sweetness, followed by a decent hop attack that lingers on for a bit. Mouthfeel is a bit watery, and lightly carbonated. MC's best brew, but on the whole it is pretty average.

goz, Feb 13, 2003
Photo of Dithyramb
3.1/5  rDev +0.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Presentation: My second beer tried in Vegas directly after trying the Stout. Tried on draft at the brewery.

Appearance: It was served in a pint glass. It took at least 20 minutes for our super-slow waitress to bring the beers, so it had no head. Only a clingy shadow of lacing was evident on the edge of the glass where an inch of head once stood. It was a light orange-amber color. The thin wisp of lacing ring stayed throughout the beer.

Nose: A nice mix of sugary malts and fresh grassy hops.

Taste: This beer is definitely more malty than hoppy. I’m not sure I would call this an IPA. The light hop presence was beat down by the sugary malts and was only present in the middle and in a dry finish.

Mouthfeel: Sticky sweetness and an under-performing mouth feel. The body was too light.

Drinkability: Not sure why, but it seemed a little too sweet to have too many. I usually don’t say that for an IPA. I was hoping for something hoppy that would produce the bitter belches while I cruised around the lazy river pool. This wasn’t the case. It was a nice beer, but I was hoping for something more. Also tried on tap in the casino and in a bottle. It was best tried here in the brewery.

Overall: This was a, at best, nice pale ale. They should stop advertising it as an IPA and start to babble in the advertising about supporting the American brewing cause. Either that, or start throwing in some more hops since it is performing below industry standard. Given the overall availability of good beer in the casinos, this is still worth coming to and trying. Although Newcastle, Bass, and Guinness were available on several other gambling floors, this was a very nice change. Just don’t judge the beer too much against what you enjoy at home.

Dithyramb, Oct 01, 2004
Photo of happy4hoppybeer
2/5  rDev -35.3%

happy4hoppybeer, Dec 06, 2011
Photo of jdhilt
2.3/5  rDev -25.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Labeled as an IPA. Pours with an off-white, two-fingered head, fades soon and leaves a good lace. Light-medium carbonation. Clear amber color. Nose is hoppy, starts and finishes hoppy, lingering hoppy aftertaste but not as hoppy as some IPAs. Sold as part of a 6-pack from their gift shop for $13.92 by the casino in Las Vegas, NV.

jdhilt, Jun 23, 2004
Photo of Gavage
3.03/5  rDev -1.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

The beer sheet at Monte Carlo calls this an IPA, but it clearly is not - more towards a mellow pale or amber.

The beer is orange in color with a small head that produced a little lacing through the drink. There was some faint floral and malt detected by the nose.The flavor was malty and fruity, with little hop level. This was unbalanced since a stronger bitterness was detected only during the aftertaste. This is a light / medium body beer. Definitely needs some more hops to get the levels above average.

Gavage, Dec 03, 2003
Photo of JayQue
3.85/5  rDev +24.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Had one of these at the Monte Carlo in Las Vegas. As an APA (the way it is listed here on the site...not bad), as an IPA (the way the Monte Carlo advertises it) it is a bit lacking in flavor. The Jackpot Ale has a really good copper/orange color. With a bigger head (like Celebration Ale), this would really be a good looking beer. Left some lacing on the glass. Smell included some hops bitterness, but once a gain nothing reminiscent of a good IPA. The taste was good with some nice hops bitterness. I was expecting some citrus/pine and perhaps some of the spiciness of an IPA, but this really isn't an IPA. I would have no problem drinking several of these. It has a nice, moderately rich mouthfeel, no unpleasant aftertaste and a fairly good flavor.

JayQue, Jun 14, 2006
Photo of TheLongBeachBum
2.93/5  rDev -5.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Presentation: Tried as part of a Sampler on a recent trip and visit to the BrewPub in Las Vegas on 26th October.

Appearance: Arrived in a small sampler glass. Darkish orange-amber color with some coppery hints when held to the light. Decent looking off-white head that had good staying power. Solid carbonation and good lacing.

Nose: Caramel malts and light fresh hops, but not to so overwhelming as to scream India Pale Ale as this beer is described as.

Taste: Sweet malts with a caramel middle. Hops only poke through the malty blanket for a short period, and they soon disappear again in the finish.

Mouthfeel: The sweet malts and carbonation lend a helping hand to an otherwise below average mouthfeel. However, the sweet malts soon become cloying. If it had more hop presence to balance the malts this would not be too bad.

Drinkability: It is pretty easy to drink the first & reasonably easy to start drinking the second, but the beer soon gets weighed down by the sweet caramel aspects and the disappointingly low hop levels.

Overall: When I first had this beer, it was below average at best, but trying it again this weekend whilst in Vegas (quite some time later than my first visit) I swear this beer has improved, albeit slightly. It still desperately needs more hops though.

This is a strange beer to fathom out. Advertised as an India Pale Ale, indeed the promotional material and bottle labels all have the usual bollocks about British Troops, India and long Sea Voyages. YET it is called just “Jackpot Pale Ale” – why not “Jackpot IPA”, I wonder?? And as if to confuse matters even more, for me, it actually somewhere between a standard Pale Ale and an IPA. It is more of a Pale Ale with a hint of hops.

This is a beer has a serious identity problem, but that aside, it’s a decent enough session Pale Ale (with a hint of hops).

TheLongBeachBum, Oct 30, 2003
Photo of kdog630
3.23/5  rDev +4.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Poured an amber color with an ample head. Unfortunately, I couldn't get much of a hop aroma. Probably because it was served in a pils glass. Got a refill in one of their anniversary glasses and it was slightly better.

Not a strong hop aroma nor aftertaste, but the malt wasn't that overpowering either. Mouthfeel was decent, but without much flavor, it could have been better.

Overall, I give it in the low 3s because it really wasn't indicative of the APA style as far as I was concerned.

kdog630, Oct 24, 2006
Photo of beertaster13
3.53/5  rDev +14.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

I didn't mind this one at all, pours a darker yellow gold with white head that was impressive. The smell was of sap and pine, hints of lime citrus as well. The taste was pleasant, not a west coast style IPA, but could detect the pine hops, the malts weren't that sweet and didn't blend well with the hops, not bad. Medium bodied and one of my favorites I tried here.

beertaster13, Aug 27, 2004
Photo of BrewMaster
3.25/5  rDev +5.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Appearance: Light golden color with a thin ringed head that fades rather quickly.

Smell: Soft, earthy hoppiness with a thin malty aroma.

Taste: Bitterness up front with a quick mushroom, earthy, biscutiy malt taste with a dry ending. That mushroom flavor is funky and rather off-putting. Good thing it doesn't last through the whole beer.

Mouthfeel: Light bodied and clean on the palate.

Drinkability: Tasty but not stellar. Well hopped and true to the style.

BrewMaster, May 03, 2005
Photo of UncleJimbo
2.85/5  rDev -7.8%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

This beer also had somewhat conflicting information in its menu description: "The recipe was traditionally created to produce a beer strong enough to withstand journeys from the UK to India." To me, this means IPA, not Pale Ale, but yet the name is Pale, and furthermore, the hop character was extremely low in the sample I tasted.

This ale poured an amber color with white foam that left lace on the glass. The aroma was very faint hops. The taste was weak and was dominated by sweet malt with very, very little hop character. The mouthfeel was smooth with a small amount of hop bitterness in the finish. The drinkability was OK, but based on the flavor, I would not call this either a Pale Ale or an India Pale Ale.

UncleJimbo, Feb 06, 2003
Photo of Dogbrick
3.5/5  rDev +13.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

From a sampler: Pours a light copper color with a thin off-white head that stayed awhile. Light hops and grapefruit in the nose. Medium-bodied and dry, with moderate floral hops, along with more subdued citrus and malt flavors. The finish is dry and lightly bitter. Overall not a bad IPA, they are on the right track with this.

Dogbrick, Oct 18, 2004
Photo of RonfromJersey
3.58/5  rDev +15.9%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Bright, clear golden amber body, topped by rapidly decaying finger and a half of white froth. Nice lacing.

Nice but not overpowering aroma, appealing mix of citrus and pine.

Good malty foundation, caramelly without being overly sweet. Hops do a nice job of balancing and then conquering, but it is not a dominating performance. Nice little hop tingle throughout the finish, and beyond.

Mouthfeel might a little too syrupy, especially considering the source. Good drinkability.

Forget the "India Pale Ale" on the label, this is not an IPA as we might expect it to be, but a nice APA, even better on draft at the brewpub (but I have no notes). The other label question are the three sevens, since Triple Seven is the brewpub at the Main Street Casino, but I'm not going to wonder too much. Do sample some if you're in Vegas.

RonfromJersey, Jun 19, 2005
Photo of fisherman34
3.38/5  rDev +9.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Orange in colour with aromatic notes of spice and mild orange. The carbonation level falls somewhere between low and medium. A lot of bready malt flavor in this one, with a bit of C-hops. There’s a good amount of bitterness, but not quite enough to balance out the sweet malt. No surprises here. Could use some more hops, but this is still some very drinkable stuff.

fisherman34, Apr 18, 2006
Photo of LarryKemp
3.13/5  rDev +1.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

The beer poured a clear straw color and had a fairly small head but what head it had lasted a long time and left lace on the glass. The aroma was dominated by hops. The hops came through early in the taste but did not overpower either the aroma or the taste. They also lingered at the finish. The mouthfeel was medium with a slight amount of carbonation. This was a fair beer and like all the other Monte Carlo beers is average in most aspects and not pushing any envelope.

LarryKemp, Feb 18, 2003
Photo of feloniousmonk
3.48/5  rDev +12.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

According to the label, an IPA.
Clear, coppery color, slim fastidious white head.
Nicely hoppy aroma, reeks of forest floor, raw hops, very resiny, albeit a bit quiet.
Taste: neat little buzz of hops on the palate, but brief, ...fruity, for sure, and slightly bitter, but lacking in body and depth. Tasty, but just short of substantial. Wish it had a heartier tang to it...it's an easy drinking ale, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's far too meek for an IPA, if that's what it's trying to be. Feels far too thin, ultimately, to be more an average, just-tasty-enough, kind of tosser-backer.
Much thanks to Lucky782 for the first of several LAs Vegas beers1
Cheers!

feloniousmonk, Feb 12, 2005
Monte Carlo Jackpot Pale from Monte Carlo Casino Pub & Brewery
75 out of 100 based on 21 ratings.