Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for L'Auberge Casino & Hotel Baton Rouge: In April 2010, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the construction of L'Auberge Baton Rouge. In May 2011, we entered into an amendment to the agreement, which, among other things, provided that the contractor would complete the construction of the casino for the total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $249.0 million. In May 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with the general contractor, which among other things increased the total guaranteed maximum price by approximately $9.0 million, including all undisputed change orders, for a total of $258.0 million. 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 million, pursuant to the lease and development agreement. 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 an additional $75.0 million in the second phase of the project to construct: (a) a hotel with a minimum of 200 guestrooms, which we expect to open in the third quarter of 2013, (b) a meeting room/event space with at least 10,000 square feet, which was completed and opened in June 2013 and (c) a parking garage with a minimum of 1,600 parking spaces, which was completed and opened in November 2012. We are required to achieve substantial completion of the second phase by October 31, 2013. In the event that the second phase is not substantially completed by October 31, 2013, we are required to pay liquidated damages of $2.0 million beginning on November 1, 2013. In each subsequent year that the second phase is not opened, the amount of liquidated damages ($2 million) increases by $1.0 million, $3.0 million in 2014, $4.0 million in 2015, $5.0 million in 2016 and $6.0 million in 2017. As a result, the maximum amount of liquidated damages that we would have to pay if the second phase is not completed is $20.0 million. Our $82.0 million expansion project at River City, which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2013, is expected to fulfill this commitment without penalty. Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for River Downs: In January 2013, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the mobilization, demolition, site work and foundation work for River Downs. This agreement provides, among other things, that the general contractor will complete the initial work for a total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $20.1 million. In July 2013, we entered into an amendment to the agreement with the general contractor, which provides that the guaranteed date of completion for the River Downs project is May 1, 2014 and the total guaranteed maximum price for the construction of the River Downs project is approximately $119.6 million, which includes the $20.1 million described above. Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for Boomtown New Orleans: In February 2013, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the construction of a 150-guestroom hotel tower at our Boomtown New Orleans property for a total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $14.2 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. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we had total self-insurance accruals of $17.4 million and $16.5 million, respectively, which are included in “Other accrued liabilities” in our unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Indiana Tax Dispute: In 2008, the Indiana Department of Revenue (the “IDR”) commenced an examination of our Indiana income tax filings for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. In 2010, we received a proposed assessment in the amount of $7.3 million, excluding interest and penalties. We filed a protest requesting abatement of all taxes, interest and penalties and had two hearings with the IDR where we provided additional facts and support. At issue is whether 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, resulted in business income subject to apportionment. In April 2012, we received a supplemental letter of findings from the IDR that denied our protest on most counts. In the supplemental letter of findings, the IDR did not raise any new technical arguments or advance any new theory that would alter our judgment regarding the recognition or measurement of the unrecognized tax benefit related to this audit. We believe that our tax return position is sustainable on the merits. In June 2012, we filed a tax appeal petition with the Indiana tax court to set aside the final assessment. Accordingly, we continue to believe that we have adequately reserved for the potential outcome. Ameristar Lawsuit: On December 24, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit related to our proposed acquisition of Ameristar Casinos, Inc. (“Ameristar”) was filed in Nevada District Court for Clark County (hereafter “Nevada District Court”), captioned Joseph Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the “Grob action”). The complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of Directors (the “Ameristar Defendants”); and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32, Inc. as defendants (the “Pinnacle Defendants”). The complaint generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's shareholders in connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar. The action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder, including attorneys' fees. Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed additional complaints in the same court making essentially the same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action. On January 15, 2013, the Court issued an order consolidating the actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single, consolidated action. On April 16, 2013, the Nevada District Court heard plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to require additional disclosure in Ameristar's proxy statement and denied plaintiffs' request. On August 5, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and order for voluntary dismissal of action without prejudice. FTC Litigation: On May 28, 2013, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) filed a civil administrative complaint alleging that the merger with Ameristar Casinos, Inc. would reduce competition and lead to higher prices and lower quality for customers in the St. Louis, Missouri and Lake Charles, Louisiana areas in violation of U.S. antitrust law. Since that time, the parties have made significant progress toward resolving the matter without the need for administrative litigation. On June 17, 2013, Pinnacle publicly announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with the Bureau of Competition Staff of the FTC (the “Bureau of Competition Staff”) that, subject to negotiation of a consent order, the FTC approval and gaming regulatory approvals, would permit the consummation of the Acquisition. Under the agreement in principle, we intend to sell Ameristar's casino hotel development project in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Lumière Place Casino, HoteLumière and the Four Seasons Hotel in St. Louis, Missouri (collectively, the “Disposition Properties”), subject to FTC approval and gaming regulatory approvals. We have negotiated a consent order with the Bureau of Competition Staff, which would permit Pinnacle to complete the merger subject to any divestitures and other terms and conditions specified in the consent order. The consent order must be approved by a vote of the FTC, which may accept or reject all or some of the terms and conditions. Prior to the sales of the Disposition Properties, we anticipate that the consent order terms will require that the Disposition Properties be operated by a third party separately from and independently of Pinnacle's other businesses in accordance with the conditions and restrictions set forth in the consent order. We anticipate that the consent order terms will provide that Pinnacle will continue to receive the economic benefits derived from the continuing operations of the Disposition Properties, pending the completion of the sales, but will not have control of the day-to-day operations of such properties. In addition, we anticipate that the consent order terms also will require Pinnacle to continue to fund development of Ameristar's Lake Charles development pending the sale of the property. Furthermore, if we fail to divest any of the Disposition Properties before the expiration of any deadlines that may be imposed by the FTC or does so in a manner or condition that does not comply with the consent order, in addition to potential civil penalties, the FTC may appoint a trustee to divest a different package of assets than the Disposition Properties in order to make the divestitures viable, competitive or more readily marketable. On August 5, 2013, the FTC ordered that the matter be withdrawn from adjudication to enable the FTC to consider the proposed consent order. 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.

Note 8—Commitments and Contingencies

Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for L'Auberge Casino & Hotel Baton Rouge: In April 2010, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the construction of L'Auberge Baton Rouge. In May 2011, we entered into an amendment to the agreement, which, among other things, provided that the contractor would complete the construction of the casino for the total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $249.0 million. In May 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with the general contractor, which among other things increased the total guaranteed maximum price by approximately $9.0 million, including all undisputed change orders, for a total of $258.0 million.

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 million, pursuant to the lease and development agreement. 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 an additional $75.0 million in the second phase of the project to construct: (a) a hotel with a minimum of 200 guestrooms, which we expect to open in the third quarter of 2013, (b) a meeting room/event space with at least 10,000 square feet, which was completed and opened in June 2013 and (c) a parking garage with a minimum of 1,600 parking spaces, which was completed and opened in November 2012. We are required to achieve substantial completion of the second phase by October 31, 2013. In the event that the second phase is not substantially completed by October 31, 2013, we are required to pay liquidated damages of $2.0 million beginning on November 1, 2013. In each subsequent year that the second phase is not opened, the amount of liquidated damages ($2 million) increases by $1.0 million, $3.0 million in 2014, $4.0 million in 2015, $5.0 million in 2016 and $6.0 million in 2017. As a result, the maximum amount of liquidated damages that we would have to pay if the second phase is not completed is $20.0 million. Our $82.0 million expansion project at River City, which is expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2013, is expected to fulfill this commitment without penalty.

Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for River Downs: In January 2013, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the mobilization, demolition, site work and foundation work for River Downs. This agreement provides, among other things, that the general contractor will complete the initial work for a total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $20.1 million. In July 2013, we entered into an amendment to the agreement with the general contractor, which provides that the guaranteed date of completion for the River Downs project is May 1, 2014 and the total guaranteed maximum price for the construction of the River Downs project is approximately $119.6 million, which includes the $20.1 million described above.

Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for Boomtown New Orleans: In February 2013, we entered into an Agreement for Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Services with a general contractor for the construction of a 150-guestroom hotel tower at our Boomtown New Orleans property for a total guaranteed maximum price of approximately $14.2 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. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we had total self-insurance accruals of $17.4 million and $16.5 million, respectively, which are included in “Other accrued liabilities” in our unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Indiana Tax Dispute: In 2008, the Indiana Department of Revenue (the “IDR”) commenced an examination of our Indiana income tax filings for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. In 2010, we received a proposed assessment in the amount of $7.3 million, excluding interest and penalties. We filed a protest requesting abatement of all taxes, interest and penalties and had two hearings with the IDR where we provided additional facts and support. At issue is whether 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, resulted in business income subject to apportionment. In April 2012, we received a supplemental letter of findings from the IDR that denied our protest on most counts. In the supplemental letter of findings, the IDR did not raise any new technical arguments or advance any new theory that would alter our judgment regarding the recognition or measurement of the unrecognized tax benefit related to this audit. We believe that our tax return position is sustainable on the merits. In June 2012, we filed a tax appeal petition with the Indiana tax court to set aside the final assessment. Accordingly, we continue to believe that we have adequately reserved for the potential outcome.

Ameristar Lawsuit: On December 24, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit related to our proposed acquisition of Ameristar Casinos, Inc. (“Ameristar”) was filed in Nevada District Court for Clark County (hereafter “Nevada District Court”), captioned Joseph Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the “Grob action”). The complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of Directors (the “Ameristar Defendants”); and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32, Inc. as defendants (the “Pinnacle Defendants”). The complaint generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's shareholders in connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar. The action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder, including attorneys' fees. Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed additional complaints in the same court making essentially the same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action. On January 15, 2013, the Court issued an order consolidating the actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single, consolidated action. On April 16, 2013, the Nevada District Court heard plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to require additional disclosure in Ameristar's proxy statement and denied plaintiffs' request. On August 5, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and order for voluntary dismissal of action without prejudice.

FTC Litigation: On May 28, 2013, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) filed a civil administrative complaint alleging that the merger with Ameristar Casinos, Inc. would reduce competition and lead to higher prices and lower quality for customers in the St. Louis, Missouri and Lake Charles, Louisiana areas in violation of U.S. antitrust law. Since that time, the parties have made significant progress toward resolving the matter without the need for administrative litigation. On June 17, 2013, Pinnacle publicly announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with the Bureau of Competition Staff of the FTC (the “Bureau of Competition Staff”) that, subject to negotiation of a consent order, the FTC approval and gaming regulatory approvals, would permit the consummation of the Acquisition. Under the agreement in principle, we intend to sell Ameristar's casino hotel development project in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Lumière Place Casino, HoteLumière and the Four Seasons Hotel in St. Louis, Missouri (collectively, the “Disposition Properties”), subject to FTC approval and gaming regulatory approvals.

We have negotiated a consent order with the Bureau of Competition Staff, which would permit Pinnacle to complete the merger subject to any divestitures and other terms and conditions specified in the consent order. The consent order must be approved by a vote of the FTC, which may accept or reject all or some of the terms and conditions. Prior to the sales of the Disposition Properties, we anticipate that the consent order terms will require that the Disposition Properties be operated by a third party separately from and independently of Pinnacle's other businesses in accordance with the conditions and restrictions set forth in the consent order. We anticipate that the consent order terms will provide that Pinnacle will continue to receive the economic benefits derived from the continuing operations of the Disposition Properties, pending the completion of the sales, but will not have control of the day-to-day operations of such properties. In addition, we anticipate that the consent order terms also will require Pinnacle to continue to fund development of Ameristar's Lake Charles development pending the sale of the property. Furthermore, if we fail to divest any of the Disposition Properties before the expiration of any deadlines that may be imposed by the FTC or does so in a manner or condition that does not comply with the consent order, in addition to potential civil penalties, the FTC may appoint a trustee to divest a different package of assets than the Disposition Properties in order to make the divestitures viable, competitive or more readily marketable. On August 5, 2013, the FTC ordered that the matter be withdrawn from adjudication to enable the FTC to consider the proposed consent order.

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.