Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments There have been no material changes to our commitments described under Note 12, Commitments and Contingencies, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 filed with the SEC on March 15, 2011. Contingencies 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. On April 14, 2008, the Department filed a Petition for Rehearing (the “Petition”) on the decision. Additionally, on the same date the Nevada Legislature filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the Department's position. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the Department's Petition on July 17, 2008. We paid use tax, over the period November 2000 through May 2008, on food purchased for subsequent use in complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties and estimate the refund to be in the range of $17.5 million to $19.9 million, including interest. In late 2009, the Department audited and denied our refund claim and subsequently issued 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 included in the refund claim period, effectively overturning the Department's 2009 deficiency assessment. Both we and the Department appealed the decision, with the exception of the portion related to the deficiency assessment, to the Nevada State Tax Commission (the "Commission"). The Department did not appeal the Judge's decision overturning the 2009 deficiency assessment and therefore, the ruling on the deficiency assessment is final and non-appealable. On August 8, 2011, the Commission remanded the case back to the Judge. The administrative hearing was held on September 26, 2011, at which time we introduced additional supporting documentation. The Judge issued a decision on November 8, 2011, reversing her position on the employee meal refund claim. Such decision also affirmed 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. We intend to appeal the decision to the Commission. Due to uncertainty surrounding the ultimate resolution of an appeal to the Commission, 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 May 2008, 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 both procedural issues and the technical merits of the Department's arguments, that we will owe this tax. Blue Chip Property Taxes In May 2007, Blue Chip received a valuation notice indicating an unanticipated increase of nearly 400% to its assessed property value as of January 1, 2006. At that time, we estimated that the increase in assessed property value could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $4 million and $11 million for the eighteen-month period ended June 30, 2007. We recorded an additional charge of $3.2 million during the three months ended June 30, 2007 to increase our property tax liability to $5.8 million at June 30, 2007 as we believed that was the most likely amount to be assessed within the range. We subsequently received a property tax bill related to our 2006 tax assessment for $6.2 million in December 2007. As we have appealed the assessment, Indiana statutes allow for a minimum required payment of $1.9 million, which was paid against the $6.2 million assessment in January 2008. In February 2009, we received a notice of revaluation, which reduced the property's assessed value by $100 million and the tax assessment by approximately $2.2 million per year. We have subsequently paid the minimum required payment of $1.9 million against provisional bills received in 2007 through 2011, all of which were based on the 2006 valuation notice. In March 2011, we reached a settlement with the assessor, reducing the valuation by an additional $96.0 million and $74.0 million for the 2006 and 2007 tax years, respectively. As a result of the agreement reached on the 2006 and 2007 valuations, we have revised our accrual for years 2008 through 2011 to reflect the expected carryforward effect of the reductions received in the prior year settlements. In October 2011, we reached an agreement with the assessor on valuations for tax years 2008 and 2009. As a result, we further reduced our property tax liability and previously accrued property tax expense by an additional $3.7 million during the three months ended September 30, 2011, which aggregated to a reduction of $9.7 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2011. Although we have not received valuation notices for years 2010 through 2011, or final tax rates for the years 2007 through 2011, we believe the assessment for the period from January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2011 could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $10.0 million and $15.0 million. We have accrued, net of the payments discussed above, approximately $14.6 million of property tax liability as of September 30, 2011, based on what we believe to be the most likely assessment within our range, once all appeals have been exhausted; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated amount will approximate the actual amount. The final tax assessment notices for the period January 1, 2007 through January 1, 2011, which have not been received as of September 30, 2011, could result in further adjustment to our estimated property tax liability at Blue Chip. 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 September 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 19^th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana.We currently are vigorously defending the lawsuit. 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. 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 12, Commitments and Contingencies, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 filed with the SEC on March 15, 2011.

Contingencies

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. On April 14, 2008, the Department filed a Petition for Rehearing (the “Petition”) on the decision. Additionally, on the same date the Nevada Legislature filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the Department's position. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the Department's Petition on July 17, 2008. We paid use tax, over the period November 2000 through May 2008, on food purchased for subsequent use in complimentary and employee meals at our Nevada casino properties and estimate the refund to be in the range of $17.5 million to $19.9 million, including interest. In late 2009, the Department audited and denied our refund claim and subsequently issued 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 included in the refund claim period, effectively overturning the Department's 2009 deficiency assessment. Both we and the Department appealed the decision, with the exception of the portion related to the deficiency assessment, to the Nevada State Tax Commission (the "Commission"). The Department did not appeal the Judge's decision overturning the 2009 deficiency assessment and therefore, the ruling on the deficiency assessment is final and non-appealable. On August 8, 2011, the Commission remanded the case back to the Judge. The administrative hearing was held on September 26, 2011, at which time we introduced additional supporting documentation. The Judge issued a decision on November 8, 2011, reversing her position on the employee meal refund claim. Such decision also affirmed 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. We intend to appeal the decision to the Commission. Due to uncertainty surrounding the ultimate resolution of an appeal to the Commission, 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 May 2008, 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 both procedural issues and the technical merits of the Department's arguments, that we will owe this tax.

Blue Chip Property Taxes

In May 2007, Blue Chip received a valuation notice indicating an unanticipated increase of nearly 400% to its assessed property value as of January 1, 2006. At that time, we estimated that the increase in assessed property value could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $4 million and $11 million for the eighteen-month period ended June 30, 2007. We recorded an additional charge of $3.2 million during the three months ended June 30, 2007 to increase our property tax liability to $5.8 million at June 30, 2007 as we believed that was the most likely amount to be assessed within the range. We subsequently received a property tax bill related to our 2006 tax assessment for $6.2 million in December 2007. As we have appealed the assessment, Indiana statutes allow for a minimum required payment of $1.9 million, which was paid against the $6.2 million assessment in January 2008. In February 2009, we received a notice of revaluation, which reduced the property's assessed value by $100 million and the tax assessment by approximately $2.2 million per year. We have subsequently paid the minimum required payment of $1.9 million against provisional bills received in 2007 through 2011, all of which were based on the 2006 valuation notice. In March 2011, we reached a settlement with the assessor, reducing the valuation by an additional $96.0 million and $74.0 million for the 2006 and 2007 tax years, respectively. As a result of the agreement reached on the 2006 and 2007 valuations, we have revised our accrual for years 2008 through 2011 to reflect the expected carryforward effect of the reductions received in the prior year settlements. In October 2011, we reached an agreement with the assessor on valuations for tax years 2008 and 2009. As a result, we further reduced our property tax liability and previously accrued property tax expense by an additional $3.7 million during the three months ended September 30, 2011, which aggregated to a reduction of $9.7 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2011. Although we have not received valuation notices for years 2010 through 2011, or final tax rates for the years 2007 through 2011, we believe the assessment for the period from January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2011 could result in a property tax assessment ranging between $10.0 million and $15.0 million. We have accrued, net of the payments discussed above, approximately $14.6 million of property tax liability as of September 30, 2011, based on what we believe to be the most likely assessment within our range, once all appeals have been exhausted; however, we can provide no assurances that the estimated amount will approximate the actual amount. The final tax assessment notices for the period January 1, 2007 through January 1, 2011, which have not been received as of September 30, 2011, could result in further adjustment to our estimated property tax liability at Blue Chip.

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 September 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 19^th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana.We currently are vigorously defending the lawsuit. 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.

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.