Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement for Belterra Park: 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 Belterra Park. This agreement provides, among other things, that the 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 Belterra Park project is May 1, 2014 and the total guaranteed maximum price for the construction of the Belterra Park 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 December 31, 2013 and 2012, we had total self-insurance accruals of $26.2 million and $13.7 million, respectively, which are included in “Other accrued liabilities” in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. 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. 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 gains 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. In August 2013, we filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the 1999 Hollywood Park sale. We asked the court to grant summary judgment in our favor based on the technical merit of Indiana tax law. On January 28, 2014, oral arguments were held at the Indiana Tax Court regarding our motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we continue to believe that we have adequately reserved for the potential outcome. 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. We negotiated a consent order with the Bureau of Competition Staff that permitted us to complete the merger subject to any divestitures and other terms and conditions specified in the consent order. The consent order was approved by a vote of the FTC. Pursuant to the consent order, we were required to sell Ameristar’s casino hotel development project in Lake Charles, Louisiana and the Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels. On July 24, 2013, we entered into an agreement to sell all of the equity interests of Ameristar Casino Lake Charles, LLC ("Ameristar Lake Charles"), which was developing the Ameristar Lake Charles development project. On November 22, 2013, we closed the sale of the equity interests of Ameristar Lake Charles. On August 16, 2013, we entered into an agreement to sell the ownership interests in certain of our subsidiaries that own and operate the Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels. We expect that the sale of Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels will be completed in the first half of 2014. The consent order terms require that Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels be operated by a third party separately from and independently of our other businesses in accordance with the conditions and restrictions set forth in the consent order. The consent order terms provide that we will continue to receive the economic benefits derived from the continuing operations of Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels, pending the completion of the sales, but will not have control of the day-to-day operations of such properties. Although we will not have control of day-to-day operations, we will continue to provide certain administrative services for Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels and we remain responsible for the effectiveness of controls and procedures and regulatory compliance at Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels. Furthermore, if we fail to divest Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels before the expiration of any deadlines that may be imposed by the FTC or do so in a manner or condition that does not comply with the consent order, then in addition to potential civil penalties, the FTC may appoint a trustee to divest a different package of assets than Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels in order to make the divestiture viable, competitive or more readily marketable. Other: We are a party to a number of 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 Belterra Park: 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 Belterra Park. This agreement provides, among other things, that the 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 Belterra Park project is May 1, 2014 and the total guaranteed maximum price for the construction of the Belterra Park 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 December 31, 2013 and 2012, we had total self-insurance accruals of $26.2 million and $13.7 million, respectively, which are included in “Other accrued liabilities” in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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. 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 gains 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. In August 2013, we filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the 1999 Hollywood Park sale. We asked the court to grant summary judgment in our favor based on the technical merit of Indiana tax law. On January 28, 2014, oral arguments were held at the Indiana Tax Court regarding our motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we continue to believe that we have adequately reserved for the potential outcome.

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.

We negotiated a consent order with the Bureau of Competition Staff that permitted us to complete the merger subject to any divestitures and other terms and conditions specified in the consent order. The consent order was approved by a vote of the FTC. Pursuant to the consent order, we were required to sell Ameristar’s casino hotel development project in Lake Charles, Louisiana and the Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels.

On July 24, 2013, we entered into an agreement to sell all of the equity interests of Ameristar Casino Lake Charles, LLC ("Ameristar Lake Charles"), which was developing the Ameristar Lake Charles development project. On November 22, 2013, we closed the sale of the equity interests of Ameristar Lake Charles.

On August 16, 2013, we entered into an agreement to sell the ownership interests in certain of our subsidiaries that own and operate the Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels. We expect that the sale of Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels will be completed in the first half of 2014.

The consent order terms require that Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels be operated by a third party separately from and independently of our other businesses in accordance with the conditions and restrictions set forth in the consent order. The consent order terms provide that we will continue to receive the economic benefits derived from the continuing operations of Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels, pending the completion of the sales, but will not have control of the day-to-day operations of such properties. Although we will not have control of day-to-day operations, we will continue to provide certain administrative services for Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels and we remain responsible for the effectiveness of controls and procedures and regulatory compliance at Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels. Furthermore, if we fail to divest Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels before the expiration of any deadlines that may be imposed by the FTC or do so in a manner or condition that does not comply with the consent order, then in addition to potential civil penalties, the FTC may appoint a trustee to divest a different package of assets than Lumiére Place Casino and Hotels in order to make the divestiture viable, competitive or more readily marketable.

Other: We are a party to a number of 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.