Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments There have been no material changes to our commitments described under Note 13, Commitments and Contingencies, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 filed with the SEC on March 7, 2012, except for: (i) the pending acquisition of Peninsula Gaming, as further discussed in Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies; and (ii) the issuance of $350 million aggregate principal amount of 9.00% senior notes due July 2020, as further discussed in Note 10, Long-Term Debt. Contingencies Copeland Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder (deceased) of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino (“Treasure Chest”), has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against Treasure Chest. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Pontchartrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland's objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency's decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland unsuccessfully attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit, as it related to Treasure Chest, was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest's license, an award of the license to him, and monetary damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, citing that Copeland failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was appealed by Copeland to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On June 21, 2002, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter to the trial court. On January 14, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter and that motion was partially denied. The Court of Appeal refused to reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss. In May 2004, we filed additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. There was no activity regarding this matter during 2005 and 2006, and the case was set to be dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute by the plaintiffs in mid-May 2007; however on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing date related to the motions to dismiss. The hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2007, at which time all parties agreed to postpone the hearing indefinitely. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled. Mr. Copeland has since passed away and his son, the executor of his estate, has petitioned the court to be substituted as plaintiff in the case. On June 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed to have the exceptions set for hearing. The parties decided to submit the exceptions to the court on the previously filed briefs. The court issued a ruling denying the exceptions on August 9, 2010. Copeland's counsel indicated a desire to move forward with the litigation and requested that the parties respond to outstanding discovery. Subsequently, on August 11, 2010, Robert J. Guidry, the co-defendant, filed a third party demand against the U.S. Attorney's Office seeking enforcement of Guidry's plea agreement which would limit Guidry's exposure in the case. On September 9, 2010, the U.S. Attorney's Office removed the suit to the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Pending before the District Court are a motion to dismiss for failing to state a cause of action filed by Guidry, asserting the same arguments he tried in state court, which the Company joined, and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by the U.S. Attorney, which may result in the case being remanded to state court. The U.S. District Court heard the motions on March 16, 2011. A ruling has not yet been issued. On April 1, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office moved for summary judgment, maintaining its jurisdictional argument as well as seeking substantive relief. On September 2, 2011, the judge issued an Order stating that the case should be remanded to state district court but allowed for additional filings by September 13, 2011. A Remand Order was issued on September 15, 2011, sending the case back to the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. Guidry filed a motion for partial summary judgment on November 14, 2011 to limit the damages in the case. Treasure Chest also filed a motion for protective order on November 18, 2011. These motions were heard on April 16, 2012. The judge took the motions under advisement. There is no indication of when the judge may rule on them. Discovery continues in the matter. If this matter ultimately results in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Nevada Use Tax Refund Claims On March 27, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision in Sparks Nugget, Inc. vs. The State of Nevada Department of Taxation (the “Department”), holding that food purchased for subsequent use in the provision of complimentary and/or employee meals was exempt from use tax. As a result of this decision, refund claims were filed for use taxes paid, over the period November 2000 through May 2008, on food purchased for subsequent use in complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties. We estimate the refund to be in the range of $18.3 million to $20.8 million, including interest. In 2009, the Department audited and denied our refund claim while simultaneously issuing a $12.3 million sales tax deficiency assessment, plus interest of $7.5 million. We appealed both the denial of the refund claim as well as the deficiency assessment in a hearing before the Nevada Administrative Law Judge ("Judge") in September 2010. In April 2011, the Judge issued a split decision, granting a refund on employee meals and applying a sales tax measure on complimentary meals; however, the ruling barred retroactive application of the sales tax measure to all years in the refund claim period, effectively overturning the Department's 2009 deficiency assessment. Both we and the Department appealed the decision to the Nevada State Tax Commission ("Commission"). On August 8, 2011, the Commission remanded the case back for a second administrative hearing, which was held on September 26, 2011, to allow for the introduction of additional supporting documentation. The Judge issued a decision on November 8, 2011, reversing her position on the employee meal refund claim while also affirming the denial of the complimentary meal refund, as well as the denial of a retroactive application of the sales tax measure to both employee and complimentary meals. The Judge's decision was affirmed in a Commission hearing on January 23, 2012. In response to the decision, we filed a petition for judicial review, appealing such decision in Clark County District Court. Subsequent to the written Commission decision issued on February 14, 2012, the Department issued a policy directive, requesting that affected taxpayers begin collecting and remitting sales tax on complimentary and employee meals. In late March 2012, we petitioned the Commission, along with other affected parties, to repeal or suspend the policy directives subject to promulgation in accordance with the appropriate statutory requirements. The Department responded by issuing a draft regulation and holding two workshops for public comment in April and May of 2012. The Commission approved the draft regulation on June 25, 2012; however, as required under Nevada Revised Statutes, such regulation must be approved by a legislative commission before its enactment. The legislative commission has not yet taken any action with respect to the regulation and it is uncertain when such action will occur. Additionally, the Department revised its policy directive on July 6, 2012, providing for a deferral on the remittance of the purported tax due, as well as the removal of the imposition of all penalties and interest on such tax. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate resolution of our appeal to District Court, as well as subsequent appeals to higher levels of the state judicial system, we will not record any gain until both we and the Department have exhausted all appeal options and a final, non-appealable decision has been rendered. For periods subsequent to February 15, 2012, the date of enforcement per the Department's policy directive, we have not collected, remitted or accrued a liability for sales tax on complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties, as we do not believe it is probable, based on procedural issues with the enforcement of the proposed regulation and the technical merits of the Department's arguments, that we owe this tax. Although not probable, it is reasonably possible that the opinion of the court may differ from our interpretation of the procedural and legal issues noted above. In the event we were to receive an adverse decision on the issues deemed to be reasonably possible, we estimate that the resulting tax assessment would not exceed $0.3 million, as of June 30, 2012. Blue Chip Property Taxes Blue Chip previously received a valuation notice from the county assessor indicating an unanticipated increase of nearly 400% to its assessed property value as of January 1, 2006. In December 2007, we received the property tax bill related to our 2006 tax assessment in the amount $6.2 million, which we appealed. In February 2009, we received a notice of revaluation, reducing the initial tax assessment by approximately $2.2 million. Since then, we have made the minimum required payment against provisional bills received in years 2007 through 2012, all of which were based on the 2006 valuation notice. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we reached settlements with the county assessor, reducing the annual valuation for years 2006 through 2009. Based on these settlements, we revised our cumulative property tax accrual to reflect the retrospective effect of the revised valuations. The impact of these revisions to the valuations resulted in a reduction of our property tax accrual of approximately $9.7 million, which was cumulatively reversed through property tax expense during the year ended December 31, 2011. During February 2012, the county set tax rates for 2007 and provided confirmation on the amount of our replacement tax credit. During the six months ended, June 30, 2012, we recognized an incremental benefit of $0.7 million as a result of the replacement tax credit. Although we have not received valuation notices for years 2010 through 2012, or final tax rates for the years 2008 through 2012, we believe the assessments for the period from January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2012 could result in a total property tax obligation ranging between $10.4 million and $15.0 million. We have accrued, net of the payment of the minimum requirements discussed above, approximately $15.0 million for this property tax liability as of June 30, 2012, based on what we believe to be the most likely outcome within our range, once all valuations have been received and all tax rates have been finalized; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated amount accrued will approximate the actual amount billed. The final tax assessment notices for the period January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2012, which have not been received as of June 30, 2012, could result in further adjustment to our estimated property tax liability at Blue Chip. Legal Matters We are also parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, except for the Copeland matter discussed above, all pending claims, if adversely decided, would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

There have been no material changes to our commitments described under Note 13, Commitments and Contingencies, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 filed with the SEC on March 7, 2012, except for: (i) the pending acquisition of Peninsula Gaming, as further discussed in Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies; and (ii) the issuance of $350 million aggregate principal amount of 9.00% senior notes due July 2020, as further discussed in Note 10, Long-Term Debt.

Contingencies

Copeland

Alvin C. Copeland, the sole shareholder (deceased) of an unsuccessful applicant for a riverboat license at the location of our Treasure Chest Casino (“Treasure Chest”), has made several attempts to have the Treasure Chest license revoked and awarded to his company. In 1999 and 2000, Copeland unsuccessfully opposed the renewal of the Treasure Chest license and has brought two separate legal actions against Treasure Chest. In November 1993, Copeland objected to the relocation of Treasure Chest from the Mississippi River to its current site on Lake Pontchartrain. The predecessor to the Louisiana Gaming Control Board allowed the relocation over Copeland's objection. Copeland then filed an appeal of the agency's decision with the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Through a number of amendments to the appeal, Copeland unsuccessfully attempted to transform the appeal into a direct action suit and sought the revocation of the Treasure Chest license. Treasure Chest intervened in the matter in order to protect its interests. The appeal/suit, as it related to Treasure Chest, was dismissed by the District Court and that dismissal was upheld on appeal by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Additionally, in 1999, Copeland filed a direct action against Treasure Chest and certain other parties seeking the revocation of Treasure Chest's license, an award of the license to him, and monetary damages. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, citing that Copeland failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was appealed by Copeland to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. On June 21, 2002, the First Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter to the trial court. On January 14, 2003, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter and that motion was partially denied. The Court of Appeal refused to reverse the denial of the motion to dismiss. In May 2004, we filed additional motions to dismiss on other grounds. There was no activity regarding this matter during 2005 and 2006, and the case was set to be dismissed by the court for failure to prosecute by the plaintiffs in mid-May 2007; however on May 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing date related to the motions to dismiss. The hearing was scheduled for September 10, 2007, at which time all parties agreed to postpone the hearing indefinitely. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled. Mr. Copeland has since passed away and his son, the executor of his estate, has petitioned the court to be substituted as plaintiff in the case. On June 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed to have the exceptions set for hearing. The parties decided to submit the exceptions to the court on the previously filed briefs. The court issued a ruling denying the exceptions on August 9, 2010. Copeland's counsel indicated a desire to move forward with the litigation and requested that the parties respond to outstanding discovery. Subsequently, on August 11, 2010, Robert J. Guidry, the co-defendant, filed a third party demand against the U.S. Attorney's Office seeking enforcement of Guidry's plea agreement which would limit Guidry's exposure in the case. On September 9, 2010, the U.S. Attorney's Office removed the suit to the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Pending before the District Court are a motion to dismiss for failing to state a cause of action filed by Guidry, asserting the same arguments he tried in state court, which the Company joined, and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by the U.S. Attorney, which may result in the case being remanded to state court. The U.S. District Court heard the motions on March 16, 2011. A ruling has not yet been issued. On April 1, 2011, the U.S. Attorney's Office moved for summary judgment, maintaining its jurisdictional argument as well as seeking substantive relief. On September 2, 2011, the judge issued an Order stating that the case should be remanded to state district court but allowed for additional filings by September 13, 2011. A Remand Order was issued on September 15, 2011, sending the case back to the 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana. Guidry filed a motion for partial summary judgment on November 14, 2011 to limit the damages in the case. Treasure Chest also filed a motion for protective order on November 18, 2011. These motions were heard on April 16, 2012. The judge took the motions under advisement. There is no indication of when the judge may rule on them. Discovery continues in the matter. If this matter ultimately results in the Treasure Chest license being revoked, it could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Nevada Use Tax Refund Claims

On March 27, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision in Sparks Nugget, Inc. vs. The State of Nevada Department of Taxation (the “Department”), holding that food purchased for subsequent use in the provision of complimentary and/or employee meals was exempt from use tax. As a result of this decision, refund claims were filed for use taxes paid, over the period November 2000 through May 2008, on food purchased for subsequent use in complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties. We estimate the refund to be in the range of $18.3 million to $20.8 million, including interest. In 2009, the Department audited and denied our refund claim while simultaneously issuing a $12.3 million sales tax deficiency assessment, plus interest of $7.5 million. We appealed both the denial of the refund claim as well as the deficiency assessment in a hearing before the Nevada Administrative Law Judge ("Judge") in September 2010. In April 2011, the Judge issued a split decision, granting a refund on employee meals and applying a sales tax measure on complimentary meals; however, the ruling barred retroactive application of the sales tax measure to all years in the refund claim period, effectively overturning the Department's 2009 deficiency assessment. Both we and the Department appealed the decision to the Nevada State Tax Commission ("Commission"). On August 8, 2011, the Commission remanded the case back for a second administrative hearing, which was held on September 26, 2011, to allow for the introduction of additional supporting documentation. The Judge issued a decision on November 8, 2011, reversing her position on the employee meal refund claim while also affirming the denial of the complimentary meal refund, as well as the denial of a retroactive application of the sales tax measure to both employee and complimentary meals. The Judge's decision was affirmed in a Commission hearing on January 23, 2012. In response to the decision, we filed a petition for judicial review, appealing such decision in Clark County District Court. Subsequent to the written Commission decision issued on February 14, 2012, the Department issued a policy directive, requesting that affected taxpayers begin collecting and remitting sales tax on complimentary and employee meals. In late March 2012, we petitioned the Commission, along with other affected parties, to repeal or suspend the policy directives subject to promulgation in accordance with the appropriate statutory requirements. The Department responded by issuing a draft regulation and holding two workshops for public comment in April and May of 2012. The Commission approved the draft regulation on June 25, 2012; however, as required under Nevada Revised Statutes, such regulation must be approved by a legislative commission before its enactment. The legislative commission has not yet taken any action with respect to the regulation and it is uncertain when such action will occur. Additionally, the Department revised its policy directive on July 6, 2012, providing for a deferral on the remittance of the purported tax due, as well as the removal of the imposition of all penalties and interest on such tax. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate resolution of our appeal to District Court, as well as subsequent appeals to higher levels of the state judicial system, we will not record any gain until both we and the Department have exhausted all appeal options and a final, non-appealable decision has been rendered. For periods subsequent to February 15, 2012, the date of enforcement per the Department's policy directive, we have not collected, remitted or accrued a liability for sales tax on complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties, as we do not believe it is probable, based on procedural issues with the enforcement of the proposed regulation and the technical merits of the Department's arguments, that we owe this tax. Although not probable, it is reasonably possible that the opinion of the court may differ from our interpretation of the procedural and legal issues noted above. In the event we were to receive an adverse decision on the issues deemed to be reasonably possible, we estimate that the resulting tax assessment would not exceed $0.3 million, as of June 30, 2012.

Blue Chip Property Taxes

Blue Chip previously received a valuation notice from the county assessor indicating an unanticipated increase of nearly 400% to its assessed property value as of January 1, 2006. In December 2007, we received the property tax bill related to our 2006 tax assessment in the amount $6.2 million, which we appealed. In February 2009, we received a notice of revaluation, reducing the initial tax assessment by approximately $2.2 million. Since then, we have made the minimum required payment against provisional bills received in years 2007 through 2012, all of which were based on the 2006 valuation notice. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we reached settlements with the county assessor, reducing the annual valuation for years 2006 through 2009. Based on these settlements, we revised our cumulative property tax accrual to reflect the retrospective effect of the revised valuations. The impact of these revisions to the valuations resulted in a reduction of our property tax accrual of approximately $9.7 million, which was cumulatively reversed through property tax expense during the year ended December 31, 2011. During February 2012, the county set tax rates for 2007 and provided confirmation on the amount of our replacement tax credit. During the six months ended, June 30, 2012, we recognized an incremental benefit of $0.7 million as a result of the replacement tax credit.

Although we have not received valuation notices for years 2010 through 2012, or final tax rates for the years 2008 through 2012, we believe the assessments for the period from January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2012 could result in a total property tax obligation ranging between $10.4 million and $15.0 million. We have accrued, net of the payment of the minimum requirements discussed above, approximately $15.0 million for this property tax liability as of June 30, 2012, based on what we believe to be the most likely outcome within our range, once all valuations have been received and all tax rates have been finalized; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated amount accrued will approximate the actual amount billed. The final tax assessment notices for the period January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2012, which have not been received as of June 30, 2012, could result in further adjustment to our estimated property tax liability at Blue Chip.

Legal Matters

We are also parties to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We believe that, except for the Copeland matter discussed above, all pending claims, if adversely decided, would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations.