Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Data Security Events In October 2013, Affinity was contacted by law enforcement regarding fraudulent credit and debit card charges which may have been linked to a data security breach in Affinity’s information technology system. We immediately initiated a thorough investigation, supported by an independent professional forensic investigation firm, to determine the nature and scope of the compromise. In December 2013, we issued a press release advising that our payment processing system had become infected by malware, which resulted in a compromise of credit card and debit card information belonging to individuals who used their cards at restaurants, hotels and gift shops at our facilities between March 14 and October 16, 2013. As of November 14, 2013, our forensics expert advised us that our credit card processing systems were free of functioning malware. We encouraged our patrons to protect against possible identity theft or other financial loss by reviewing account statements for potential fraudulent activity during the period of exposure. In April 2014, we again learned that an unauthorized intrusion and installation of malware compromising the credit card processing environment had occurred. We then hired a different professional forensics investigation firm to conduct a thorough investigation of the more recently discovered event, and the security of our information technology environment as it related to both incidents. As a result of the second investigation, we have reason to believe credit card and debit card information from individuals who used their cards at restaurants, hotels and gift shops at our properties between December 7, 2013 and April 28, 2014, also may have been compromised. In May 2014, we issued another press release and encouraged our patrons to protect against possible identity theft or other financial loss by reviewing account statements for potential fraudulent activity during the period of exposure. We carry insurance coverage of $5.0 million for liability resulting from network security events. As of March 31, 2016, we have incurred $1.2 million in expense, including deductibles, for the security breaches. We do not expect to incur additional material expenses that are not covered by insurance. However, we cannot estimate the total amount which we will ultimately incur and be reimbursed by insurance carriers because, although the independent forensic investigation has concluded, we have not received all of the monetary assessments and evaluations from the credit card processors and issuing banks seeking to recover the cost of replacement cards and a portion of fraudulent charges, nor have we received any third-party claims as of this date. In addition, several state attorneys general are investigating the data breach events, including how they occurred, their consequences and our responses. We are cooperating in the governmental investigation, and could be subject to fines or other obligations. We have not concluded that a loss from the governmental investigation is probable, however, and therefore have not recorded an accrual for governmental investigation or regulatory action. We will continue to evaluate information as it becomes known and will record an estimate for loss at the time or times when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. We have commenced a lawsuit in federal court in Nevada against the firm that conducted the initial forensic investigation for recovery of the costs and assessments we incurred as a result of the April 2014 data breach discovery. Litigation In March 2012, the Clarke County Development Corp. (“CCDC”), the local non-profit Iowa licensee for which we manage the Lakeside Hotel & Casino (“Lakeside”) in Osceola, Iowa, filed an action in Iowa state court against Affinity and Lakeside, seeking a declaratory judgment that the management contract between CCDC and Lakeside is non-assignable. We removed the case to federal court and contested CCDC's position even though we had no plans to assign the agreement. CCDC also named Lakeside, Affinity and the Iowa Racing & Gaming Commission (“IRGC”) in a separate petition in Iowa state court seeking judicial review of the IRGC's ruling, in November 2010, which approved our predecessor's creditors to become the owners of Affinity Gaming, LLC, and thereby the indirect owners of Lakeside, prior to our emergence from bankruptcy and notwithstanding CCDC’s objection that an assignment of the management agreement had occurred which required its consent. On July 29, 2013, just two weeks before the hearing on judicial review, CCDC filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the petition for judicial review. On July 30, 2013, CCDC filed a motion to dismiss the federal court action without prejudice, which was granted. CCDC’s dismissal of the state court petition and the federal court action was based upon its filing in Iowa state court on August 5, 2013 of a third lawsuit, since removed to federal court in Iowa, in which it seeks to enforce a settlement agreement it alleges was reached with us during a non-binding mediation held in June 2013. On April 21, 2015, following discovery in the new lawsuit, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and against CCDC, entering judgment for the Company. CCDC appealed the grant of summary judgment to the 8^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and oral argument on the appeal was heard November 5, 2015. We do not know when a decision on the appeal will be rendered. In November 2013, Chartwell Advisory Group, Ltd. (“Chartwell”), a professional services firm that facilitated filing refund requests with the Nevada Tax Commission for sales and use tax paid by certain casinos on the cost of complimentary meals for periods beginning in 2004, filed a lawsuit against numerous Nevada casino operators, including one of our subsidiaries, alleging that it is owed a percentage of the tax casinos did not have to pay as a result of a 2012 state tax regulation and related settlement agreement. Our subsidiary had entered into an agreement with this firm prior to the bankruptcy whereby Chartwell would receive a percentage of any refund we received from the state of sales tax previously paid by our subsidiary. Although Chartwell asserts that we owe them approximately $0.3 million, we do not believe any amounts are due to Chartwell and accordingly, we have not recorded an accrual. Discovery in the case has just begun. We are party to certain other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business or asserted by way of defense or counterclaim in actions we filed. We believe that our defenses are substantial in each of these matters and that we can successfully defend our legal position without material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. Environmental Remediation In 2011, during excavation at the site of our travel center at Whiskey Pete’s Hotel and Casino (“Whiskey Pete’s”) in Primm, Nevada, we encountered several contaminated underground sites which required soil remediation and groundwater testing. Much of the contamination resulted from underground fuel storage tanks related to a gas station operated more than 35 years ago, as well as from abandoned underground fuel lines. We also began testing at the direction of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (the “NDEP”) to determine the extent to which the contamination has affected the groundwater, and we have agreed to continue monitoring the groundwater for a period of at least two more years. For the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, we incurred $33 thousand and $0.1 million and in costs on remediation work at the Whiskey Pete’s site. We have an insurance policy which provides coverage for environmental remediation costs of up to $5.0 million. From the beginning of construction through March 31, 2016, we have incurred a total of approximately $4.0 million in costs on remediation work and received $1.9 million from our insurer. Insurance proceeds were received in 2015 and prior years. Although we believe that incurring additional cost related to the testing and ongoing monitoring of groundwater for contamination is probable, we cannot reasonably estimate an amount to accrue at this time because the NDEP has not told us what additional work, if any, it will require us to perform. Additionally, we believe some or all of the ongoing monitoring costs will be reimbursed by insurance as part of our initial claim. We also filed suit in Nevada state district court for partial recovery against the environmental consultant that managed the initial remediation. The ultimate cost to us will depend on the extent of contamination found, if any, as a result of our ongoing testing, the amount of remediation we are required to perform, and the amount we are reimbursed. The litigation against the environmental consultant is in the discovery phase. As we complete our ongoing monitoring obligation, we intend to analyze any cost incurred, and we will expense or capitalize it as necessary.

NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Data Security Events

In October 2013, Affinity was contacted by law enforcement regarding fraudulent credit and debit card charges which may have been linked to a data security breach in Affinity’s information technology system. We immediately initiated a thorough investigation, supported by an independent professional forensic investigation firm, to determine the nature and scope of the compromise. In December 2013, we issued a press release advising that our payment processing system had become infected by malware, which resulted in a compromise of credit card and debit card information belonging to individuals who used their cards at restaurants, hotels and gift shops at our facilities between March 14 and October 16, 2013. As of November 14, 2013, our forensics expert advised us that our credit card processing systems were free of functioning malware. We encouraged our patrons to protect against possible identity theft or other financial loss by reviewing account statements for potential fraudulent activity during the period of exposure. In April 2014, we again learned that an unauthorized intrusion and installation of malware compromising the credit card processing environment had occurred. We then hired a different professional forensics investigation firm to conduct a thorough investigation of the more recently discovered event, and the security of our information technology environment as it related to both incidents. As a result of the second investigation, we have reason to believe credit card and debit card information from individuals who used their cards at restaurants, hotels and gift shops at our properties between December 7, 2013 and April 28, 2014, also may have been compromised. In May 2014, we issued another press release and encouraged our patrons to protect against possible identity theft or other financial loss by reviewing account statements for potential fraudulent activity during the period of exposure.

We carry insurance coverage of $5.0 million for liability resulting from network security events. As of March 31, 2016, we have incurred $1.2 million in expense, including deductibles, for the security breaches. We do not expect to incur additional material expenses that are not covered by insurance. However, we cannot estimate the total amount which we will ultimately incur and be reimbursed by insurance carriers because, although the independent forensic investigation has concluded, we have not received all of the monetary assessments and evaluations from the credit card processors and issuing banks seeking to recover the cost of replacement cards and a portion of fraudulent charges, nor have we received any third-party claims as of this date. In addition, several state attorneys general are investigating the data breach events, including how they occurred, their consequences and our responses. We are cooperating in the governmental investigation, and could be subject to fines or other obligations. We have not concluded that a loss from the governmental investigation is probable, however, and therefore have not recorded an accrual for governmental investigation or regulatory action. We will continue to evaluate information as it becomes known and will record an estimate for loss at the time or times when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. We have commenced a lawsuit in federal court in Nevada against the firm that conducted the initial forensic investigation for recovery of the costs and assessments we incurred as a result of the April 2014 data breach discovery.

Litigation

In March 2012, the Clarke County Development Corp. (“CCDC”), the local non-profit Iowa licensee for which we manage the Lakeside Hotel & Casino (“Lakeside”) in Osceola, Iowa, filed an action in Iowa state court against Affinity and Lakeside, seeking a declaratory judgment that the management contract between CCDC and Lakeside is non-assignable. We removed the case to federal court and contested CCDC's position even though we had no plans to assign the agreement. CCDC also named Lakeside, Affinity and the Iowa Racing & Gaming Commission (“IRGC”) in a separate petition in Iowa state court seeking judicial review of the IRGC's ruling, in November 2010, which approved our predecessor's creditors to become the owners of Affinity Gaming, LLC, and thereby the indirect owners of Lakeside, prior to our emergence from bankruptcy and notwithstanding CCDC’s objection that an assignment of the management agreement had occurred which required its consent. On July 29, 2013, just two weeks before the hearing on judicial review, CCDC filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the petition for judicial review. On July 30, 2013, CCDC filed a motion to dismiss the federal court action without prejudice, which was granted. CCDC’s dismissal of the state court petition and the federal court action was based upon its filing in Iowa state court on August 5, 2013 of a third lawsuit, since removed to federal court in Iowa, in which it seeks to enforce a settlement agreement it alleges was reached with us during a non-binding mediation held in June 2013. On April 21, 2015, following discovery in the new lawsuit, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company and against CCDC, entering judgment for the Company. CCDC appealed the grant of summary judgment to the 8^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and oral argument on the appeal was heard November 5, 2015. We do not know when a decision on the appeal will be rendered.

In November 2013, Chartwell Advisory Group, Ltd. (“Chartwell”), a professional services firm that facilitated filing refund requests with the Nevada Tax Commission for sales and use tax paid by certain casinos on the cost of complimentary meals for periods beginning in 2004, filed a lawsuit against numerous Nevada casino operators, including one of our subsidiaries, alleging that it is owed a percentage of the tax casinos did not have to pay as a result of a 2012 state tax regulation and related settlement agreement. Our subsidiary had entered into an agreement with this firm prior to the bankruptcy whereby Chartwell would receive a percentage of any refund we received from the state of sales tax previously paid by our subsidiary. Although Chartwell asserts that we owe them approximately $0.3 million, we do not believe any amounts are due to Chartwell and accordingly, we have not recorded an accrual. Discovery in the case has just begun.

We are party to certain other claims, legal actions and complaints arising in the ordinary course of business or asserted by way of defense or counterclaim in actions we filed. We believe that our defenses are substantial in each of these matters and that we can successfully defend our legal position without material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Environmental Remediation

In 2011, during excavation at the site of our travel center at Whiskey Pete’s Hotel and Casino (“Whiskey Pete’s”) in Primm, Nevada, we encountered several contaminated underground sites which required soil remediation and groundwater testing. Much of the contamination resulted from underground fuel storage tanks related to a gas station operated more than 35 years ago, as well as from abandoned underground fuel lines. We also began testing at the direction of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (the “NDEP”) to determine the extent to which the contamination has affected the groundwater, and we have agreed to continue monitoring the groundwater for a period of at least two more years.

For the three months ended March 31, 2016 and 2015, we incurred $33 thousand and $0.1 million and in costs on remediation work at the Whiskey Pete’s site. We have an insurance policy which provides coverage for environmental remediation costs of up to $5.0 million. From the beginning of construction through March 31, 2016, we have incurred a total of approximately $4.0 million in costs on remediation work and received $1.9 million from our insurer. Insurance proceeds were received in 2015 and prior years.

Although we believe that incurring additional cost related to the testing and ongoing monitoring of groundwater for contamination is probable, we cannot reasonably estimate an amount to accrue at this time because the NDEP has not told us what additional work, if any, it will require us to perform. Additionally, we believe some or all of the ongoing monitoring costs will be reimbursed by insurance as part of our initial claim. We also filed suit in Nevada state district court for partial recovery against the environmental consultant that managed the initial remediation. The ultimate cost to us will depend on the extent of contamination found, if any, as a result of our ongoing testing, the amount of remediation we are required to perform, and the amount we are reimbursed. The litigation against the environmental consultant is in the discovery phase. As we complete our ongoing monitoring obligation, we intend to analyze any cost incurred, and we will expense or capitalize it as necessary.