Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for L'Auberge Casino & Hotel Baton Rouge: On April 5, 2010, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the construction of L'Auberge Casino & Hotel Baton Rouge. On May 26, 2011, we entered into an amendment to the agreement, which among other things, provides that the contractor will complete the construction of the casino for the total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $229 million and provides for a guaranteed date of substantial completion of May 31, 2012. We expect L'Auberge Casino & Hotel Baton Rouge to open in the summer of 2012. Redevelopment Agreement: In connection with our Lumière Place Casino and Hotel, we have a redevelopment agreement, which, among other things, commits us to oversee the investment of $50.0 million in residential housing, retail or mixed-use developments in the City of St. Louis within five years of the opening of Lumière Place. Such investment can be made with partners and partner contributions and project debt financing, all of which count toward the $50.0 million investment commitment. We are also obligated to pay an annual fee of $1.0 million to the City of St. Louis, which obligation began after our River City Casino opened in March 2010. The redevelopment agreement also contains certain contingent payments in the event of certain defaults. If we and any development partners collectively fail to invest $50.0 million in residential housing, retail, or mixed-use developments within five years of the opening of the casino and hotels, we would be obligated to pay an additional annual service fee of $1.0 million, less applicable credits, in year six, $2.0 million in years seven and eight, and $2.0 million annually thereafter, adjusted by the change in the consumer price index. Lease and Development Agreement for River City Casino: In connection with our River City Casino, we have a lease and development agreement with the St. Louis County Port Authority which, among other things, commits us to lease 56 acres for 99 years (subject to certain termination provisions). We have invested the minimum requirement of $375.0 million, pursuant to the agreement. We are still required to develop and construct a hatch shell on the adjoining property within eighteen months of March 4, 2010. From April 1, 2010 through the expiration of the term of the lease and development agreement, we are required to pay to St. Louis County as annual rent the greater of (a) $4.0 million, or (b) 2.5% of annual adjusted gross receipts, as that term is defined in the lease and development agreement. We are also required to invest at least an additional $75 million into a second phase that would include a hotel with a minimum of 100 guestrooms and other amenities, to be mutually agreed upon by us and St. Louis County. The second phase must be opened within three years after March 4, 2010. In each of the five subsequent years that the second phase is not opened, the amount of liquidated damages begins at $2.0 million for the first year and increases by $1.0 million each subsequent year: hence, $3.0 million in year two, $4.0 million in year three, $5.0 million in year four and $6.0 million in year five. As a result, the maximum total amount of such liquidated damages that we would have to pay if the second phase is not completed is $20.0 million. Self-Insurance: We self-insure various levels of general liability and workers' compensation at all of our properties and medical coverage at most of our properties. Insurance reserves include accruals for estimated settlements for known claims, as well as accruals for estimates of claims not yet made, which are included in “Accrued compensation” and “Other accrued liabilities” on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Legal Union Proceeding: On May 11, 2010, a former President Casino employee filed an unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") against (1) Casino One Corporation doing business as Lumière Place; (2) PNK (River City), LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pinnacle, doing business as River City; (3) President Riverboat Casino-Missouri, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pinnacle, doing business as President Casino; and (4) Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. The former employee alleged that Lumière Place, River City, President Casino and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. are a single employer, which unlawfully refused to hire President Casino employees for River City and Lumière Place. On or about June 17, 2011, Casino One Corporation, PNK (River City), LLC, and President Riverboat Casino Missouri, Inc. settled the underlying issues with approximately 51 former President Casino employees. On June 23, 2011, the NLRB approved the settlement and the withdrawal of the underlying unfair labor practice charge, subject to the parties performing their responsibilities under the settlement. The parties have satisfied all of their responsibilities under the settlement. Madison House Litigation: On December 23, 2008, Madison House Group, L.P. (“Madison House”) filed suit in Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Atlantic County against ACE Gaming, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“ACE”), and one other defendant. We acquired ACE as part of our acquisition of the entities owning the former Sands Hotel & Casino (the “Sands”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey in November 2006. The lawsuit arises out of a lease dated December 18, 2000 between Madison House as landlord and ACE as tenant for the Madison House hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges in part that ACE breached certain obligations under the lease, including, among other things, by failing to operate and maintain the hotel as required by the lease, which was alleged to have resulted in substantial damages to the hotel. The lawsuit further alleges that the Company, as the ultimate parent entity of ACE, should be jointly and severally liable with ACE for the damages sought, and separately alleges independent actions against the Company as described more fully in the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks specific performance of ACE's obligations under the lease, including restoration of the hotel, as well as unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees, against the Company and ACE. ACE continues to make its payment obligations under the lease, which expires in December 2012. On March 17, 2010, Madison House moved to dismiss its complaint and ACE's counterclaim without prejudice, which motion was heard on April 28, 2010. The court ruled that it was granting the motion to dismiss Madison House's complaint, without prejudice, but that it was denying the motion to dismiss ACE's counterclaim. The court also ruled that the case would be moved from the Chancery Division to the Law Division. On September 20, 2010, Madison House moved to dismiss ACE's counterclaim, which was heard on October 15, 2010. On January 13, 2011, the court denied Madison House's motion to dismiss the counterclaim. While we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation, we intend to purse our counterclaim vigorously. Indiana Tax Dispute: In 2008, the Indiana Department of Revenue (“IDR”) commenced an income tax examination of the Company's Indiana income tax filings for the 2005 to 2007 period. In February 2010, the Company received a notice of proposed adjustment from the field agent in the amount of $7.3 million, excluding interest and penalties of $2.3 million, challenging the treatment of income and gain from certain asset sales, including the sale of the Hollywood Park Racetrack in 1999, and other transactions outside of Indiana, such as the Aztar merger termination fee in 2006, which we reported on our Indiana state tax returns for the years 2000 through 2007. In March 2010, the Company timely filed a protest with the IDR requesting abatement of all tax, interest and penalties. In September 2010, a hearing was held with the IDR where the Company restated significant facts and positions which the Company believed the field agent had not taken into consideration in issuing the assessment. On March 30, 2011, the IDR issued a letter of finding which denied all issues protested in the hearing but sustained the Company's request to waive penalties. On April 28, 2011, the Company timely filed a rehearing request of which the IDR promptly granted. A rehearing was conducted on June 22, 2011, with the Company presenting additional clarifying facts and technical support for our tax positions. The IDR has 60 days to review the additional data presented and will issue its supplemental findings. Indiana State Sales Tax Dispute: In 2002, following a sales and use tax audit of Belterra Casino Resort, we received a proposed assessment for approximately $3.1 million, including interest and penalties. We filed a protest in December 2002. In March 2006, the IDR conducted an administrative hearing of our protest, and, in April 2006, the IDR denied our protest with respect to nearly the entire assessment. In May 2006, we filed an appeal of the IDR's findings with the Indiana Tax Court and conceded a portion, of which $0.8 million was paid in July 2006. In February 2009, the Indiana Tax Court issued its final determination and concluded that Belterra Casino Resort was not liable for the tax. In April 2009, the IDR filed a Petition to Review with the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 29, 2009. On October 5, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Tax Court's ruling and ruled against the Company in a 3-2 decision. Following the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling, we received a final demand in the amount of approximately $3.3 million which the Company promptly paid. On November 4, 2010, the Company filed a petition for rehearing with the Indiana Supreme Court. On February 9, 2011, we received the Indiana Supreme Court's order affirming its original decision. However, the Indiana Supreme Court granted rehearing with respect to the penalty portion, which was $246,000, and remanded that issue back to the Indiana Tax Court. On June 6, 2011, the Company reached an agreement with the IDR regarding the penalty dispute, which granted a tax credit totaling $123,000, which may be used to offset future sales and use tax liabilities. Other: We are a party to a number of other pending legal proceedings. Management does not expect that the outcome of such proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for L'Auberge Casino & Hotel Baton Rouge: On April 5, 2010, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the construction of L'Auberge Casino & Hotel Baton Rouge. On May 26, 2011, we entered into an amendment to the agreement, which among other things, provides that the contractor will complete the construction of the casino for the total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $229 million and provides for a guaranteed date of substantial completion of May 31, 2012. We expect L'Auberge Casino & Hotel Baton Rouge to open in the summer of 2012.

Redevelopment Agreement: In connection with our Lumière Place Casino and Hotel, we have a redevelopment agreement, which, among other things, commits us to oversee the investment of $50.0 million in residential housing, retail or mixed-use developments in the City of St. Louis within five years of the opening of Lumière Place. Such investment can be made with partners and partner contributions and project debt financing, all of which count toward the $50.0 million investment commitment. We are also obligated to pay an annual fee of $1.0 million to the City of St. Louis, which obligation began after our River City Casino opened in March 2010. The redevelopment agreement also contains certain contingent payments in the event of certain defaults. If we and any development partners collectively fail to invest $50.0 million in residential housing, retail, or mixed-use developments within five years of the opening of the casino and hotels, we would be obligated to pay an additional annual service fee of $1.0 million, less applicable credits, in year six, $2.0 million in years seven and eight, and $2.0 million annually thereafter, adjusted by the change in the consumer price index.

Lease and Development Agreement for River City Casino: In connection with our River City Casino, we have a lease and development agreement with the St. Louis County Port Authority which, among other things, commits us to lease 56 acres for 99 years (subject to certain termination provisions). We have invested the minimum requirement of $375.0 million, pursuant to the agreement. We are still required to develop and construct a hatch shell on the adjoining property within eighteen months of March 4, 2010. From April 1, 2010 through the expiration of the term of the lease and development agreement, we are required to pay to St. Louis County as annual rent the greater of (a) $4.0 million, or (b) 2.5% of annual adjusted gross receipts, as that term is defined in the lease and development agreement. We are also required to invest at least an additional $75 million into a second phase that would include a hotel with a minimum of 100 guestrooms and other amenities, to be mutually agreed upon by us and St. Louis County. The second phase must be opened within three years after March 4, 2010. In each of the five subsequent years that the second phase is not opened, the amount of liquidated damages begins at $2.0 million for the first year and increases by $1.0 million each subsequent year: hence, $3.0 million in year two, $4.0 million in year three, $5.0 million in year four and $6.0 million in year five. As a result, the maximum total amount of such liquidated damages that we would have to pay if the second phase is not completed is $20.0 million.

Self-Insurance: We self-insure various levels of general liability and workers' compensation at all of our properties and medical coverage at most of our properties. Insurance reserves include accruals for estimated settlements for known claims, as well as accruals for estimates of claims not yet made, which are included in “Accrued compensation” and “Other accrued liabilities” on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Legal

Union Proceeding: On May 11, 2010, a former President Casino employee filed an unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") against (1) Casino One Corporation doing business as Lumière Place; (2) PNK (River City), LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pinnacle, doing business as River City; (3) President Riverboat Casino-Missouri, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pinnacle, doing business as President Casino; and (4) Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. The former employee alleged that Lumière Place, River City, President Casino and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. are a single employer, which unlawfully refused to hire President Casino employees for River City and Lumière Place. On or about June 17, 2011, Casino One Corporation, PNK (River City), LLC, and President Riverboat Casino Missouri, Inc. settled the underlying issues with approximately 51 former President Casino employees. On June 23, 2011, the NLRB approved the settlement and the withdrawal of the underlying unfair labor practice charge, subject to the parties performing their responsibilities under the settlement. The parties have satisfied all of their responsibilities under the settlement.

Madison House Litigation: On December 23, 2008, Madison House Group, L.P. (“Madison House”) filed suit in Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Atlantic County against ACE Gaming, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“ACE”), and one other defendant. We acquired ACE as part of our acquisition of the entities owning the former Sands Hotel & Casino (the “Sands”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey in November 2006. The lawsuit arises out of a lease dated December 18, 2000 between Madison House as landlord and ACE as tenant for the Madison House hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges in part that ACE breached certain obligations under the lease, including, among other things, by failing to operate and maintain the hotel as required by the lease, which was alleged to have resulted in substantial damages to the hotel. The lawsuit further alleges that the Company, as the ultimate parent entity of ACE, should be jointly and severally liable with ACE for the damages sought, and separately alleges independent actions against the Company as described more fully in the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks specific performance of ACE's obligations under the lease, including restoration of the hotel, as well as unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees, against the Company and ACE. ACE continues to make its payment obligations under the lease, which expires in December 2012.

On March 17, 2010, Madison House moved to dismiss its complaint and ACE's counterclaim without prejudice, which motion was heard on April 28, 2010. The court ruled that it was granting the motion to dismiss Madison House's complaint, without prejudice, but that it was denying the motion to dismiss ACE's counterclaim. The court also ruled that the case would be moved from the Chancery Division to the Law Division. On September 20, 2010, Madison House moved to dismiss ACE's counterclaim, which was heard on October 15, 2010. On January 13, 2011, the court denied Madison House's motion to dismiss the counterclaim. While we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation, we intend to purse our counterclaim vigorously.

Indiana Tax Dispute: In 2008, the Indiana Department of Revenue (“IDR”) commenced an income tax examination of the Company's Indiana income tax filings for the 2005 to 2007 period. In February 2010, the Company received a notice of proposed adjustment from the field agent in the amount of $7.3 million, excluding interest and penalties of $2.3 million, challenging the treatment of income and gain from certain asset sales, including the sale of the Hollywood Park Racetrack in 1999, and other transactions outside of Indiana, such as the Aztar merger termination fee in 2006, which we reported on our Indiana state tax returns for the years 2000 through 2007. In March 2010, the Company timely filed a protest with the IDR requesting abatement of all tax, interest and penalties. In September 2010, a hearing was held with the IDR where the Company restated significant facts and positions which the Company believed the field agent had not taken into consideration in issuing the assessment. On March 30, 2011, the IDR issued a letter of finding which denied all issues protested in the hearing but sustained the Company's request to waive penalties. On April 28, 2011, the Company timely filed a rehearing request of which the IDR promptly granted. A rehearing was conducted on June 22, 2011, with the Company presenting additional clarifying facts and technical support for our tax positions. The IDR has 60 days to review the additional data presented and will issue its supplemental findings.

Indiana State Sales Tax Dispute: In 2002, following a sales and use tax audit of Belterra Casino Resort, we received a proposed assessment for approximately $3.1 million, including interest and penalties. We filed a protest in December 2002. In March 2006, the IDR conducted an administrative hearing of our protest, and, in April 2006, the IDR denied our protest with respect to nearly the entire assessment. In May 2006, we filed an appeal of the IDR's findings with the Indiana Tax Court and conceded a portion, of which $0.8 million was paid in July 2006. In February 2009, the Indiana Tax Court issued its final determination and concluded that Belterra Casino Resort was not liable for the tax. In April 2009, the IDR filed a Petition to Review with the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 29, 2009. On October 5, 2010, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Indiana Tax Court's ruling and ruled against the Company in a 3-2 decision. Following the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling, we received a final demand in the amount of approximately $3.3 million which the Company promptly paid. On November 4, 2010, the Company filed a petition for rehearing with the Indiana Supreme Court. On February 9, 2011, we received the Indiana Supreme Court's order affirming its original decision. However, the Indiana Supreme Court granted rehearing with respect to the penalty portion, which was $246,000, and remanded that issue back to the Indiana Tax Court. On June 6, 2011, the Company reached an agreement with the IDR regarding the penalty dispute, which granted a tax credit totaling $123,000, which may be used to offset future sales and use tax liabilities.

Other: We are a party to a number of other pending legal proceedings. Management does not expect that the outcome of such proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations.