Litigation Litigation (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions		3 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
	Jan. 11, 2017	Mar. 31, 2017	Dec. 31, 2016
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Management's Assessment and Process		Caesars is party to other ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business. We do not expect the outcome of any such litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, as we do not believe it is reasonably possible that we will incur material losses as a result of such litigation.	Caesars is party to other ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business. We do not expect the outcome of any such litigation to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, as we do not believe it is reasonably possible that we will incur material losses as a result of such litigation.
Loss Contingency, Opinion of Counsel		We believe that the claims and demands described above against CEC are without merit and we intend to defend the Company vigorously. The claims against CEOC have been stayed due to the Chapter 11 process and, as described above, the actions against CEC have now also been stayed. See additional disclosure relating to CEOC’s Chapter 11 filing in Note 1. In the event that the litigation stays are ever lifted, we believe that the Noteholder Disputes and the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits present a reasonably possible likelihood of an adverse outcome. Should these matters ultimately be resolved through litigation outside of the financial restructuring of CEOC (the “Financial Restructuring”) and should a court find in favor of the claimants in some or all of the Noteholder Disputes, such determination would likely lead to a CEC reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (see Note 1). We are not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses should any of the Noteholder Disputes ultimately be resolved against us, although they could potentially exceed $11 billion.	We believe that the claims and demands described above against CEC are without merit and we intend to defend the Company vigorously. The claims against CEOC have been stayed due to the Chapter 11 process and, as described above, the actions against CEC have now also been stayed. See additional disclosure relating to CEOC’s Chapter 11 filing in Note 1. In the event that the litigation stays are ever lifted, we believe that the Noteholder Disputes and the Parent Guarantee Lawsuits present a reasonably possible likelihood of an adverse outcome. Should these matters ultimately be resolved through litigation outside of the financial restructuring of CEOC (the “Financial Restructuring”), and should a court find in favor of the claimants in some or all of the Noteholder Disputes, such determination would likely lead to a CEC reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (see Note 1). We are not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses should any of the Noteholder Disputes ultimately be resolved against us, although they could potentially exceed $11 billion.
Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit [Member] | Pending Litigation [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Lawsuit Filing Date		August 4, 2014	August 4, 2014
Loss Contingency, Allegations		The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, intentional and constructive fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste.	claims for breach of contract, intentional and constructive fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate waste.
Loss Contingency, Damages Sought		The lawsuit seeks (1) an award of money damages; (2) to void certain transfers, the earliest of which dates back to 2010; (3) an injunction directing the recipients of the assets in these transactions to return them to CEOC; (4) a declaration that CEC remains liable under the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes; (5) to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on the transferred assets; and (6) an award to plaintiffs for their attorneys’ fees and costs.	(1) an award of money damages; (2) to void certain transfers, the earliest of which dates back to 2010; (3) an injunction directing the recipients of the assets in these transactions to return them to CEOC; (4) a declaration that CEC remains liable under the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes; (5) to impose a constructive trust or equitable lien on the transferred assets; and (6) an award to plaintiffs for their attorneys’ fees and costs.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Court, Arbitrator or Mediator		During the pendency of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the action has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC. The motion to dismiss with respect to CEC was denied on March 18, 2015. In a Verified Supplemental Complaint filed on August 3, 2015, the plaintiff stated that due to CEOC’s bankruptcy filing, the continuation of all claims was stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy except for Claims II, III, and X. These are claims against CEC only, for breach of contract in respect of the release of the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the CEOC 10.00% Second-Priority Notes, for declaratory relief in respect of the release of this guarantee, and for violations of the Trust Indenture Act in respect of the release of this guarantee. Fact discovery in the case is complete, and cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed by the parties. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.	During the pendency of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, the action has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC. The motion to dismiss with respect to CEC was denied on March 18, 2015. In a Verified Supplemental Complaint filed on August 3, 2015, the plaintiff stated that due to CEOC’s bankruptcy filing, the continuation of all claims was stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy except for Claims II, III, and X. These are claims against CEC only, for breach of contract in respect of the release of the parent guarantee formerly applicable to the CEOC 10.00% Second-Priority Notes, for declaratory relief in respect of the release of this guarantee, and for violations of the Trust Indenture Act in respect of the release of this guarantee. Fact discovery in the case is complete, and cross-motions for summary judgment have been filed by the parties. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.
Loss Contingency, Opinion of Counsel		CEC believes this lawsuit is without merit and is defending itself vigorously.	CEC believes this lawsuit is without merit and is defending itself vigorously.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Defendant		A motion to dismiss this action was filed by CEC and other defendants in September 2014, and the motion was argued in December 2014.	A motion to dismiss this action was filed by CEC and other defendants in September 2014, and the motion was argued in December 2014.
Loss Contingency, Name of Plaintiff		Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as successor Indenture Trustee for the 10.00% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the “10.00% Second-Priority Notes”), on behalf of itself and, it alleges, derivatively on behalf of CEOC	Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, solely in its capacity as successor Indenture Trustee for the 10.00% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the “10.00% Second-Priority Notes”), on behalf of itself and, it alleges, derivatively on behalf of CEOC
Loss Contingency, Domicile of Litigation		the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware	the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware
Loss Contingency, Name of Defendant		CEC and CEOC, CGP, CAC,CERP, CES, Eric Hession, Gary Loveman, Jeffrey D. Benjamin, David Bonderman, Kelvin L. Davis, Marc C. Rowan, David B. Sambur, and Eric Press	CEC and CEOC, CGP, CAC,CERP, CES, Eric Hession, Gary Loveman, Jeffrey D. Benjamin, David Bonderman, Kelvin L. Davis, Marc C. Rowan, David B. Sambur, and Eric Press
Senior Unsecured Lawsuits [Member] | Pending Litigation [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Lawsuit Filing Date		September 3, 2014	September 3, 2014
Loss Contingency, Allegations		claiming broadly that an August 12, 2014 Note Purchase and Support Agreement between CEC and CEOC (on the one hand) and certain other holders of the Senior Unsecured Notes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and the indentures governing the Senior Unsecured Notes. The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and monetary relief. On October 2, 2014, a holder of CEOC’s 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of all persons who held these Notes from August 11, 2014 to the present filed a substantially similar suit in the same court, against the same defendants, relating to the same transactions.	claiming broadly that an August 12, 2014 Note Purchase and Support Agreement between CEC and CEOC (on the one hand) and certain other holders of the Senior Unsecured Notes (on the other hand) impaired their own rights under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and the indentures governing the Senior Unsecured Notes.
Loss Contingency, Damages Sought			The lawsuit seeks both declaratory and monetary relief. On October 2, 2014, a holder of CEOC’s 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 purporting to represent a class of all persons who held these Notes from August 11, 2014 to the present filed a substantially similar suit in the same court, against the same defendants, relating to the same transactions.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Court, Arbitrator or Mediator		Both lawsuits (the “Senior Unsecured Lawsuits”) were assigned to the same judge. The claims against CEOC have been automatically stayed during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The court denied a motion to dismiss both lawsuits with respect to CEC. The parties have completed fact discovery with respect to both plaintiffs' claims against CEC. On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs in the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits moved for partial summary judgment, and on December 29, 2015, those motions were denied. On December 4, 2015, plaintiff in the action brought on behalf of holders of CEOC’s 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes moved for class certification and briefing has been completed. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.	Both lawsuits (the “Senior Unsecured Lawsuits”) were assigned to the same judge. The claims against CEOC have been automatically stayed during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The court denied a motion to dismiss both lawsuits with respect to CEC. The parties have completed fact discovery with respect to both plaintiffs' claims against CEC. On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs in the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits moved for partial summary judgment, and on December 29, 2015, those motions were denied. On December 4, 2015, plaintiff in the action brought on behalf of holders of CEOC’s 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes moved for class certification and briefing has been completed. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.
Loss Contingency, Name of Plaintiff		holders of approximately $21 million of CEOC 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 and 5.75% Senior Unsecured Noted due 2017 (collectively, the “Senior Unsecured Notes”)	holders of approximately $21 million of CEOC 6.50% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2016 and 5.75% Senior Unsecured Noted due 2017 (collectively, the “Senior Unsecured Notes”)
Loss Contingency, Domicile of Litigation		federal district court in Manhattan	federal district court in Manhattan
Loss Contingency, Name of Defendant		CEC and CEOC	CEC and CEOC
Delaware First Lien Lawsuit [Member] | Pending Litigation [Member] | Guarantee Obligations [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Lawsuit Filing Date		November 25, 2014	November 25, 2014
Loss Contingency, Allegations		alleging generally that defendants improperly stripped CEOC of certain assets, wrongfully effected a release of CEC’s parent guarantee of the 8.50% Senior Secured Notes and committed other wrongs.	defendants improperly stripped CEOC of certain assets, wrongfully effected a release of CEC’s parent guarantee of the 8.50% Senior Secured Notes and committed other wrongs
Loss Contingency, Damages Sought		Among other things, UMB asked the court to appoint a receiver over CEOC. In addition, the suit pleads claims for fraudulent conveyances/transfers, insider preferences, illegal dividends, declaratory judgment (for breach of contract as regards to the parent guarantee and also as to certain covenants in the bond indenture), tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunities, and unjust enrichment, and seeks monetary, equitable and declaratory relief.	Among other things, UMB asked the court to appoint a receiver over CEOC. In addition, the suit pleads claims for fraudulent conveyances/transfers, insider preferences, illegal dividends, declaratory judgment (for breach of contract as regards to the parent guarantee and also as to certain covenants in the bond indenture), tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunities, and unjust enrichment, and seeks monetary, equitable and declaratory relief.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Court, Arbitrator or Mediator		The lawsuit has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. Pursuant to the First Lien Bond RSA, the lawsuit also has been stayed in its entirety, with the consent of all of the parties to it.	The lawsuit has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC during its Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. Pursuant to the First Lien Bond RSA, the lawsuit also has been stayed in its entirety, with the consent of all of the parties to it.
Loss Contingency, Name of Plaintiff		UMB Bank (“UMB”), as successor indenture trustee for CEOC's 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020 (the “8.50% Senior Secured Notes”)	UMB Bank (“UMB”), as successor indenture trustee for CEOC's 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020 (the “8.50% Senior Secured Notes”)
Loss Contingency, Domicile of Litigation		Delaware Chancery Court	Delaware Chancery Court
Loss Contingency, Name of Defendant		CEC, CEOC, CERP, CAC, CGP, CES, and against individual past and present Board members Loveman, Benjamin, Bonderman, Davis, Press, Rowan, Sambur, Hession, Colvin, Kleisner, Swann, Williams, Housenbold, Cohen, Stauber, and Winograd	CEC, CEOC, CERP, CAC, CGP, CES, and against individual past and present Board members Loveman, Benjamin, Bonderman, Davis, Press, Rowan, Sambur, Hession, Colvin, Kleisner, Swann, Williams, Housenbold, Cohen, Stauber, and Winograd
February 13 Notice [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Allegations		On February 13, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 13 Notice”) from Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 10.00% Second-Priority Notes. The February 13 Notice alleges that CEOC’s commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that Caesars Entertainment is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest, and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 13 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 13 Notice accordingly demands that Caesars Entertainment immediately pay Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, cash in an amount of not less than $3.7 billion, plus accrued and unpaid interest (including without limitation the $184 million interest payment due December 15, 2014 that CEOC elected not to pay) and accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees and other expenses. The February 13 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue.	On February 13, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 13 Notice”) from Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 10.00% Second-Priority Notes. The February 13 Notice alleges that CEOC’s commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that Caesars Entertainment is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 10.00% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest, and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 13 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 13 Notice accordingly demands that Caesars Entertainment immediately pay Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, cash in an amount of not less than $3.7 billion, plus accrued and unpaid interest (including without limitation the $184 million interest payment due December 15, 2014 that CEOC elected not to pay) and accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees and other expenses. The February 13 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue.
February 18 Notice [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Allegations		On February 18, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 18 Notice”) from BOKF, N.A. (“BOKF”), in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the “12.75% Second-Priority Notes”). The February 18 Notice alleges that CEOC’s commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that CEC is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 18 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 18 Notice therefore demands that CEC immediately pay BOKF cash in an amount of not less than $750 million, plus accrued and unpaid interest, accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees, and other expenses. The February 18 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue.	On February 18, 2015, Caesars Entertainment received a Demand For Payment of Guaranteed Obligations (the “February 18 Notice”) from BOKF, N.A. (“BOKF”), in its capacity as successor Trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2018 (the “12.75% Second-Priority Notes”). The February 18 Notice alleges that CEOC’s commencement of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constituted an event of default under the indenture governing the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes; that all amounts due and owing on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes therefore immediately became payable; and that CEC is responsible for paying CEOC’s obligations on the 12.75% Second-Priority Notes, including CEOC’s obligation to timely pay all principal, interest and any premium due on these notes, as a result of a parent guarantee provision contained in the indenture governing the notes that the February 18 Notice alleges is still binding. The February 18 Notice therefore demands that CEC immediately pay BOKF cash in an amount of not less than $750 million, plus accrued and unpaid interest, accrued and unpaid attorneys’ fees, and other expenses. The February 18 Notice also alleges that the interest, fees and expenses continue to accrue.
New York Second Lien Lawsuit [Member] | Pending Litigation [Member] | Guarantee Obligations [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Allegations		On March 3, 2015, BOKF filed a lawsuit (the “New York Second Lien Lawsuit”) against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Notes. On June 15, 2015, UMB filed a lawsuit (the “New York First Lien Lawsuit”) against CEC, also in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 11.25% Senior Secured Notes due 2017, 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020, and 9.00% Senior Secured Notes due 2020. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that CEOC’s filing of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constitutes an event of default under the indentures governing these notes, causing all principal and interest to become immediately due and payable, and that CEC is obligated to make those payments pursuant to parent guarantee provisions in the indentures governing these notes that plaintiffs allege are still binding. Both plaintiffs bring claims for violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for declaratory relief and BOKF brings an additional claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. The cases were both assigned to the same judge presiding over the other Parent Guarantee Lawsuits (as defined below) that are taking place in Manhattan. CEC filed its answer to the BOKF complaint on March 25, 2015, and to the UMB complaint on August 10, 2015. On June 25, 2015, and June 26, 2015, BOKF and UMB, respectively, moved for partial summary judgment, specifically on their claims alleging a violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, seeking both declaratory relief and damages. On August 27, 2015, those motions were denied. The court, on its own motion, certified its order with respect to the interpretation of the Trust Indenture Act for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on December 22, 2015, the appellate court denied our motion for leave to appeal. On November 20, 2015, BOKF and UMB again moved for partial summary judgment. These motions likewise were denied. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.	On March 3, 2015, BOKF filed a lawsuit (the “New York Second Lien Lawsuit”) against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 12.75% Second-Priority Notes. On June 15, 2015, UMB filed a lawsuit (the “New York First Lien Lawsuit”) against CEC, also in federal district court in Manhattan, in its capacity as successor trustee for CEOC’s 11.25% Senior Secured Notes due 2017, 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020, and 9.00% Senior Secured Notes due 2020. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that CEOC’s filing of its voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy case constitutes an event of default under the indentures governing these notes, causing all principal and interest to become immediately due and payable, and that CEC is obligated to make those payments pursuant to parent guarantee provisions in the indentures governing these notes that plaintiffs allege are still binding. Both plaintiffs bring claims for violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for declaratory relief and BOKF brings an additional claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. The cases were both assigned to the same judge presiding over the other Parent Guarantee Lawsuits (as defined below) that are taking place in Manhattan. CEC filed its answer to the BOKF complaint on March 25, 2015, and to the UMB complaint on August 10, 2015. On June 25, 2015, and June 26, 2015, BOKF and UMB, respectively, moved for partial summary judgment, specifically on their claims alleging a violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, seeking both declaratory relief and damages. On August 27, 2015, those motions were denied. The court, on its own motion, certified its order with respect to the interpretation of the Trust Indenture Act for interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and on December 22, 2015, the appellate court denied our motion for leave to appeal. On November 20, 2015, BOKF and UMB again moved for partial summary judgment. These motions likewise were denied. The judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.
New York Senior Notes Lawsuit [Member] | Pending Litigation [Member] | Guarantee Obligations [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Allegations		On October 20, 2015, Wilmington Trust, National Association (“Wilmington Trust”), filed a lawsuit (the “New York Senior Notes Lawsuit” and, together with the Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit, the Delaware First Lien Lawsuit, the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits, the New York Second Lien Lawsuit, and the New York First Lien Lawsuit, the “Parent Guarantee Lawsuits”) against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan in its capacity as successor indenture trustee for CEOC’s 10.75% Senior Notes due 2016 (the “10.75% Senior Notes”). Plaintiff alleges that CEC is obligated to make payment of amounts due on the 10.75% Senior Notes pursuant to a parent guarantee provision in the indenture governing those notes that plaintiff alleges is still in effect. Plaintiff raises claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and for declaratory judgment, and seeks monetary and declaratory relief. CEC filed its answer to the complaint on November 23, 2015. As with the other parent guaranty lawsuits taking place in Manhattan, the judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.	On October 20, 2015, Wilmington Trust, National Association (“Wilmington Trust”), filed a lawsuit (the “New York Senior Notes Lawsuit” and, together with the Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit, the Delaware First Lien Lawsuit, the Senior Unsecured Lawsuits, the New York Second Lien Lawsuit, and the New York First Lien Lawsuit, the “Parent Guarantee Lawsuits”) against CEC in federal district court in Manhattan in its capacity as successor indenture trustee for CEOC’s 10.75% Senior Notes due 2016 (the “10.75% Senior Notes”). Plaintiff alleges that CEC is obligated to make payment of amounts due on the 10.75% Senior Notes pursuant to a parent guarantee provision in the indenture governing those notes that plaintiff alleges is still in effect. Plaintiff raises claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and for declaratory judgment, and seeks monetary and declaratory relief. CEC filed its answer to the complaint on November 23, 2015. As with the other parent guaranty lawsuits taking place in Manhattan, the judge presiding over these cases thereafter retired, and a new judge was appointed to preside over these lawsuits. That judge set a new summary judgment briefing schedule, and the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 26, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order staying this proceeding (and others). The stay will remain in effect until the earlier of (a) the Effective Date, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.
Merger Lawsuit [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Lawsuit Filing Date			December 30, 2014
Loss Contingency, Allegations			claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against CAC and CEC
Loss Contingency, Damages Sought			(1) an order directing the CAC Directors to fulfill alleged fiduciary duties to CAC in connection with the proposed merger between CAC and CEC announced on December 22, 2014, specifically by announcing their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts exist between the CAC Directors’ personal interests and their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and (c) act independently to protect the interests of the shareholders; (2) an order directing the CAC Directors to account for all damages suffered or to be suffered by plaintiff and the putative class as a result of the Merger; and (3) an award to plaintiff for his costs and attorneys’ fees.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Court, Arbitrator or Mediator			On October 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to local rule, the case could have been reinstated at the plaintiff’s written request, provided such request was filed within 30 days of the date of service of written notice of the dismissal. The 30-day time period has now expired.
Loss Contingency, Name of Plaintiff			Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and, he alleges, all others similarly situated
Loss Contingency, Domicile of Litigation			Clark County District Court in the State of Nevada
Loss Contingency, Name of Defendant			CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the individual defendants collectively, the “CAC Directors”)
Hilton Matter [Member] | CEOC | Settled Litigation [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Settlement Agreement, Terms		On June 9, 2016, CEC, CEOC and the Hilton Parties entered into a settlement of the Hilton Parties’ claims (the “Settlement Agreement”). Under the settlement, Hilton will receive a general unsecured claim in CEOC’s bankruptcy case for an amount equal to $51 million plus 31.75% of amounts paid by Hilton to the Hilton Plan due after July 16, 2016. For periods following the effective date of CEOC’s plan of reorganization, CEC shall assume certain of CEOC’s obligations under the Allocation Agreement. In exchange, Hilton shall turn over to CEC the distributions on account of $24.5 million of Hilton’s claim in the CEOC bankruptcy. On June 21, 2016, the parties sought approval of the Settlement Agreement. The CEOC Bankruptcy Court approved the Settlement Agreement on July 19, 2016. The settlement amount is fully accrued in liabilities subject to compromise at CEOC, and the Settlement Agreement is subject to the effectiveness of CEOC’s plan of reorganization.
Bankruptcy Claims, Amount of Claims Filed		$ 51.0	$ 51.0
Loss Contingency, Receivable, Additions		24.5	$ 24.5
National Retirement Fund Lawsuit [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Allegations			In January 2015, a majority of the Trustees of the National Retirement Fund (“NRF”), a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan, voted to expel the five indirect subsidiaries of CEC which were required to make contributions to the legacy plan of the NRF (the “Five Employers”). The NRF contended that the financial condition of the Five Employers’ controlled group (the “CEC Controlled Group”) and CEOC’s then-potential bankruptcy presented an “actuarial risk” to the plan because, depending on the outcome of any CEOC bankruptcy proceedings, CEC might no longer be liable to the plan for any partial or complete withdrawal liability. As a result, the NRF claimed that the expulsion of the Five Employers constituted a complete withdrawal of the CEC Controlled Group from the plan. CEOC, in its bankruptcy proceedings, has to date not rejected the contribution obligations to the NRF of any of its subsidiary employers. The NRF has advised the CEC Controlled Group (which includes CERP) that the expulsion of the Five Employers has triggered a joint and several withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million.
National Retirement Fund Lawsuit [Member] | Pending Litigation [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Litigation Settlement, Amount		9.0
Loss Contingency, Damages Sought			If both the 105 Motion and CEC’s appeal of the CEC Action are denied, then CEC could be required to pay to the NRF joint and several withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million each while CEC simultaneously arbitrates whether the NRF and its Board of Trustees had the authority to expel the Five Employers and trigger withdrawal liability for the CEC Controlled Group.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Court, Arbitrator or Mediator			On March 18, 2015, before the Standstill Agreement was executed, the NRF and its fund manager commenced a collection action in the S.D.N.Y. against CEC, CERP and all non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group for the payment of the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability, which the NRF contended was due on March 15, 2015 (the “NRF Action”). On December 25, 2015, the District Judge entered an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss over the defendants’ objections on the ground that the defendants’ arguments must first be arbitrated under ERISA. On February 26, 2016, the NRF and its fund manager filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability and for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 7, 2016, the District Judge entered an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant partial summary judgment to the NRF Action plaintiffs over CEC and CERP’s objections on the ground that CEC and CERP’s further arguments must also first be arbitrated under ERISA. CEC and CERP filed a Notice of Appeal to protect their rights in response to this Order. Subsequently, the District Judge determined that no final order or judgment was entered, and thus the Notice of Appeal was premature. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal without prejudice to any party’s rights to appeal a final, appealable judgment that may later be entered in the case. On December 5, 2016, an interlocutory judgment was entered against CEC and CERP comprising the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability referred to above, interest and liquidated damages under ERISA‎. On December 19, 2016, a CEC and CERP filed a motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for immediate appeal and to stay the NRF Action plaintiffs’ motions to amend and for summary judgment, as described below. On January 11, 2017, the District Court granted the motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) in the amount of $9 million, but denied the motion for a stay, and a judgment in that amount was entered the next day. CEC has appealed this decision to the Second Circuit, and has bonded the judgment pending appeal. On December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add claims for the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, which the NRF Action plaintiffs contended were past due , as well as for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. Also on December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs simultaneously filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. These motions have not yet been fully submitted to the District Court.
Loss Contingency, Opinion of Counsel			We believe our legal arguments against the actions undertaken by NRF are strong and will pursue them vigorously, and will defend vigorously against the claims raised by the NRF in the NRF Action. Since settlement discussions with the NRF are continuing and no material discovery has yet been performed with respect to any of the above actions, we cannot currently provide assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the matters at issue.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Defendant			We have opposed the various NRF expulsion actions. On January 8, 2015, prior to the NRF’s vote to expel the Five Employers, CEC filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “S.D.N.Y.”) against the NRF and its Board of Trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment that they did not have the authority to expel the Five Employers and thus allegedly trigger withdrawal liability for the CEC Controlled Group (the “CEC Action”). On December 25, 2015, the District Judge entered an order dismissing the CEC Action on the ground that CEC’s claims in this action must first be arbitrated under ERISA. CEC has appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Oral argument on this appeal was heard on January 30, 2017, and the Second Circuit has reserved decision on this appeal. On March 6 and March 27, 2015, CEOC and certain of its subsidiaries filed in the CEOC bankruptcy proceedings two motions to void (a) the purported expulsion of the Five Employers and based thereon the alleged triggering of withdrawal liability for the non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group, and (b) a notice and payment demand for quarterly payments of withdrawal liability subsequently made by the NRF to certain non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group, respectively, on the ground that each of these actions violated the automatic stay (the “362 Motions”). On November 12, 2015, Bankruptcy Judge Goldgar issued a decision denying the 362 Motions on the ground that the NRF’s actions were directed at non-debtors and therefore did not violate the automatic stay. CEOC has appealed this decision to the federal district court in Chicago. On March 6, 2015, CEOC commenced an adversary proceeding against the NRF and its Board of Trustees in the Bankruptcy Court (the “Adversary Proceeding”). On March 11, 2015, CEOC filed a motion in that Adversary Proceeding to extend the automatic stay in the CEOC bankruptcy proceedings to apply to the NRF’s expulsion of the Five Employers (the “105 Motion”). Judge Goldgar has not yet decided the 105 Motion. On March 20, 2015, CEC, CEOC and CERP, on behalf of themselves and others, entered into a Standstill Agreement with the NRF and its Board of Trustees that, among other things, stayed each member of the CEC Controlled Group’s purported obligation to commence making quarterly payments of withdrawal liability and instead required the Five Employers to continue making monthly contribution payments to the NRF, unless and until each of the 362 Motions and the 105 Motion had been denied. As the 105 Motion has not yet been decided, the Standstill Agreement remains in effect.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Plaintiff			On December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add claims for the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, which the NRF Action plaintiffs contended were past due , as well as for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. Also on December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs simultaneously filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. These motions have not yet been fully submitted to the District Court.
National Retirement Fund Lawsuit [Member] | Settled Litigation [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Litigation Settlement, Amount		$ 45.0
Loss Contingency, Allegations		In January 2015, a majority of the Trustees of the National Retirement Fund (“NRF”), a multi-employer defined benefit pension plan, voted to expel the five indirect subsidiaries of CEC which were required to make contributions to the legacy plan of the NRF (the “Five Employers”). The NRF contended that the financial condition of the Five Employers’ controlled group (the “CEC Controlled Group”) and CEOC’s then-potential bankruptcy presented an “actuarial risk” to the plan because, depending on the outcome of any CEOC bankruptcy proceedings, CEC might no longer be liable to the plan for any partial or complete withdrawal liability. As a result, the NRF claimed that the expulsion of the Five Employers constituted a complete withdrawal of the CEC Controlled Group from the plan. CEOC, in its bankruptcy proceedings, has to date not rejected the contribution obligations to the NRF of any of its subsidiary employers. The NRF has advised the CEC Controlled Group (which includes CERP) that the expulsion of the Five Employers has triggered a joint and several withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million.
Loss Contingency, Damages Sought		If both the 105 Motion and CEC’s appeal of the CEC Action are denied, then CEC could be required to pay to the NRF joint and several withdrawal liability with a present value of approximately $360 million, payable in 80 quarterly payments of about $6 million each while CEC simultaneously arbitrates whether the NRF and its Board of Trustees had the authority to expel the Five Employers and trigger withdrawal liability for the CEC Controlled Group.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Court, Arbitrator or Mediator		On December 5, 2016, an interlocutory judgment was entered against CEC and CERP comprising the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability referred to above, interest and liquidated damages under ERISA. On December 19, 2016, a CEC and CERP filed a motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for immediate appeal and to stay the NRF Action plaintiffs’ motions to amend and for summary judgment, as described below. On January 11, 2017, the District Court granted the motion to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b) in the amount of $9 million, but denied the motion for a stay, and a judgment in that amount was entered the next day. CEC has appealed this decision to the Second Circuit, and has bonded the judgment pending appeal. On February 3, 2017, the NRF Action plaintiffs filed a motion for an order permitting plaintiffs to execute on the Rule 54(b) judgment immediately, which CEC and CERP opposed. The district court has not yet ruled on this motion. On December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add claims for the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, which the NRF Action plaintiffs contended were past due, as well as for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. Also on December 23, 2016, the NRF Action plaintiffs simultaneously filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the second through eighth quarterly payments of withdrawal liability, for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and for injunctive relief requiring the defendants to pay all further quarterly payments as they purportedly became due. The magistrate judge has not yet ruled on these motions.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Defendant		On March 18, 2015, before the Standstill Agreement was executed, the NRF and its fund manager commenced a collection action in the S.D.N.Y. against CEC, CERP and all non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group for the payment of the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability, which the NRF contended was due on March 15, 2015 (the “NRF Action”). On December 25, 2015, the District Judge entered an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss over the defendants’ objections on the ground that the defendants’ arguments must first be arbitrated under ERISA. On February 26, 2016, the NRF and its fund manager filed a motion for summary judgment against CEC and CERP for payment of the first quarterly payment of withdrawal liability and for interest, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 7, 2016, the District Judge entered an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant partial summary judgment to the NRF Action plaintiffs over CEC and CERP’s objections on the ground that CEC and CERP’s further arguments must also first be arbitrated under ERISA. CEC and CERP filed a Notice of Appeal to protect their rights in response to this Order. Subsequently, the District Judge determined that no final order or judgment was entered, and thus the Notice of Appeal was premature. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal without prejudice to any party’s rights to appeal a final appealable judgment that may later be entered in the case.
Loss Contingency, Settlement Agreement, Terms		On March 13, 2017, CEC, CERP, CEOC (on behalf of itself and each of the Debtors and its other direct and indirect subsidiaries), the Five Employers, the NRF, the NRF’s Legacy Plan, the NRF’s Trustees, and others entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “NRF Settlement Agreement”).  Under the NRF Settlement Agreement, on the effective date of the Debtors’ reorganization plan, CEC would pay $45 million to the NRF (the “NRF Payments”) in three different baskets: (1) a settlement basket consisting of $10 million as litigation settlement and $5 million for legal fee reimbursement; (2) a contribution basket consisting of $15 million, which sum will grow at 3.1% per year, and which, beginning 17.5 years after the plan effective date, will be applied to offset the first $8 million of contributions from the Five Employers to the Legacy Plan annually until completely utilized; and (3) a withdrawal liability basket of $15 million, which does not grow, to be applied if there is a partial or complete withdrawal at any time after the plan effective date. Upon the NRF Payments being made, mutual releases will be exchanged between the CEC-affiliated parties and the NRF-affiliated parties to the Settlement Agreement. On March 20, 2017, the Debtors moved for the Settlement Agreement to be approved by the Bankruptcy Court. On April 19, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court approved the NRF Settlement Agreement, and the parties have filed joint requests to stay all actions and appeals relating to the CEC Action and the NRF Action pending the settlement becoming final.
Loss Contingency Accrual		$ 30.0
Loss Contingency, Domicile of Litigation		United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Plaintiff		We have opposed the various NRF expulsion actions. On January 8, 2015, prior to the NRF’s vote to expel the Five Employers, CEC filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “S.D.N.Y.”) against the NRF and its Board of Trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment that they did not have the authority to expel the Five Employers and thus allegedly trigger withdrawal liability for the CEC Controlled Group (the “CEC Action”). On December 25, 2015, the District Judge entered an order dismissing the CEC Action on the ground that CEC’s claims in this action must first be arbitrated under ERISA. CEC has appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Oral argument on this appeal was heard on January 30, 2017, and the Second Circuit has reserved decision on this appeal. On March 6 and March 27, 2015, CEOC and certain of its subsidiaries filed in the CEOC bankruptcy proceedings two motions to void (a) the purported expulsion of the Five Employers and based thereon the alleged triggering of withdrawal liability for the non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group, and (b) a notice and payment demand for quarterly payments of withdrawal liability subsequently made by the NRF to certain non-debtor members of the CEC Controlled Group, respectively, on the ground that each of these actions violated the automatic stay (the “362 Motions”). On November 12, 2015, Bankruptcy Judge Goldgar issued a decision denying the 362 Motions on the ground that the NRF’s actions were directed at non-debtors and therefore did not violate the automatic stay. CEOC has appealed this decision to the federal district court in Chicago. On March 6, 2015, CEOC commenced an adversary proceeding against the NRF and its Board of Trustees in the Bankruptcy Court (the “Adversary Proceeding”). On March 11, 2015, CEOC filed a motion in that Adversary Proceeding to extend the automatic stay in the CEOC bankruptcy proceedings to apply to the NRF’s expulsion of the Five Employers (the “105 Motion”). Judge Goldgar has not yet decided the 105 Motion. On March 20, 2015, CEC, CEOC and CERP, on behalf of themselves and others, entered into a Standstill Agreement with the NRF and its Board of Trustees that, among other things, stayed each member of the CEC Controlled Group’s purported obligation to commence making quarterly payments of withdrawal liability and instead required the Five Employers to continue making monthly contribution payments to the NRF, unless and until each of the 362 Motions and the 105 Motion had been denied. As the 105 Motion has not yet been decided, the Standstill Agreement remains in effect.
National Retirement Fund Lawsuit [Member] | Subsequent Event [Member] | Pending Litigation [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Litigation Settlement, Amount	$ 9.0
Anti-Money Laundering Case [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Litigation Settlement, Amount		$ 1.5
Anti-Money Laundering Case [Member] | Settled Litigation [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Litigation Settlement, Amount			$ 1.5
Loss Contingency, Allegations		In recent years, governmental authorities have been increasingly focused on anti-money laundering (“AML”) policies and procedures, with a particular focus on the gaming industry. In October 2013, CEOC’s subsidiary, Desert Palace, Inc. (the owner of and referred to herein as Caesars Palace), received a letter from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury (“FinCEN”), stating that FinCEN was investigating Caesars Palace for alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act to determine whether it is appropriate to assess a civil penalty and/or take additional enforcement action against Caesars Palace. Caesars Palace responded to FinCEN’s letter in January 2014. Additionally, we were informed in October 2013 that a federal grand jury investigation regarding anti-money laundering practices of the Company and its subsidiaries had been initiated. CEC and Caesars Palace have been cooperating with FinCEN, the Department of Justice and the Nevada Gaming Control Board (the “GCB”) on this matter. On September 8, 2015, FinCEN announced a settlement pursuant to which Caesars Palace agreed to an $8 million civil penalty for its violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, which penalty shall be treated as a general unsecured claim in Caesars Palace’s bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, Caesars Palace agreed to conduct periodic external audits and independent testing of its AML compliance program, report to FinCEN on mandated improvements, adopt a rigorous training regime, and engage in a “look-back” for suspicious transactions. The terms of the FinCEN settlement were approved by the Bankruptcy Court on October 19, 2015.	In recent years, governmental authorities have been increasingly focused on anti-money laundering (“AML”) policies and procedures, with a particular focus on the gaming industry. In October 2013, CEOC’s subsidiary, Desert Palace, Inc. (the owner of and referred to herein as Caesars Palace), received a letter from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury (“FinCEN”), stating that FinCEN was investigating Caesars Palace for alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act to determine whether it is appropriate to assess a civil penalty and/or take additional enforcement action against Caesars Palace. Caesars Palace responded to FinCEN’s letter in January 2014. Additionally, we were informed in October 2013 that a federal grand jury investigation regarding anti-money laundering practices of the Company and its subsidiaries had been initiated. CEC and Caesars Palace have been cooperating with FinCEN, the Department of Justice and the Nevada Gaming Control Board (the “GCB”) on this matter. On September 8, 2015, FinCEN announced a settlement pursuant to which Caesars Palace agreed to an $8 million civil penalty for its violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, which penalty shall be treated as a general unsecured claim in Caesars Palace’s bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, Caesars Palace agreed to conduct periodic external audits and independent testing of its AML compliance program, report to FinCEN on mandated improvements, adopt a rigorous training regime, and engage in a “look-back” for suspicious transactions. The terms of the FinCEN settlement were approved by the Bankruptcy Court on October 19, 2015.
Loss Contingency, Settlement Agreement, Terms		CEOC and the GCB reached a settlement on the same facts as above, wherein CEC agreed to pay $1.5 million and provide to the GCB the same information that is reported to FinCEN and to resubmit its updated AML policies. On September 17, 2015, the settlement agreement was approved by the Nevada Gaming Commission.	CEOC and the GCB reached a settlement on the same facts as above, wherein CEC agreed to pay $1.5 million and provide to the GCB the same information that is reported to FinCEN and to resubmit its updated AML policies. On September 17, 2015, the settlement agreement was approved by the Nevada Gaming Commission
Anti-Money Laundering Case [Member] | CEOC | Settled Litigation [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Litigation Settlement, Amount			$ 8.0