Litigation (Details) $ in Millions	3 Months Ended
Litigation (Details) $ in Millions	Mar. 31, 2017 USD ($) count
Caesars Entertainment Operating Company [Member] \| Report of Bankruptcy Examiner [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Management's Assessment and Process	We and CEC contest the examiner’s findings with respect to the transaction pursuant to which The LINQ promenade and Octavius Tower were transferred to CERP, including his findings that CEOC was insolvent at relevant times, that there were breaches of fiduciary duty, that there were fraudulent transfers and that CEOC did not receive fair value for assets transferred, and as to the calculation of damages.
Caesars Entertainment Operating Company [Member] \| Report of Bankruptcy Examiner [Member] \| Octavius Tower [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss	$ 129.0
Caesars Entertainment Operating Company [Member] \| Report of Bankruptcy Examiner [Member] \| Minimum [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss	716.0
Caesars Entertainment Operating Company [Member] \| Report of Bankruptcy Examiner [Member] \| Maximum [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Estimate of Possible Loss	$ 1,300.0
Pending Litigation [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Opinion of Counsel	Although the claims and demands described above against CERP are not currently being litigated, the Company believes that such claims and demands are without merit and is prepared to defend itself vigorously. The claims against CEOC have been stayed due to the Chapter 11 process, and the actions against CEC have now also been stayed. In the event that the litigation stays are ever lifted, CERP believes there is a reasonably possible likelihood of an adverse outcome. We are not able to reasonably estimate a range of reasonably possible losses should any of the noteholder disputes ultimately be resolved against CEC. Should any of the noteholder disputes ultimately be resolved through litigation outside of the financial restructuring of CEOC, and should a court find in favor of the claimants in any of these noteholder disputes, such determination could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
Loss Contingency, Management's Assessment and Process	In addition to the ongoing actions and uncertainties described above, certain of our affiliates, including CEC, are subject to certain liquidity concerns and other uncertainties. While it is possible that such concerns and uncertainties may result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, because CERP is a separate legal entity and financial structure and its properties are managed by CES, we do not believe such a scenario is likely.
Pending Litigation [Member] \| Harrah's Atlantic City [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Number of Plaintiffs \| count	79,000
Loss Contingency Accrual	$ 0.0
Loss Contingency, Damages Awarded, Value	$ 5.2
Loss Contingency, Domicile of Litigation	The Superior Court of New Jersey
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Defendant	In December 2013, we filed a motion to stay the judgment pending appeal, and in January 2014, the court granted the stay and we filed an appeal. In February 2014, per the court’s stay order, we posted into an escrow account the potential exposure under the judge’s ruling in the amount of $5.2 million plus attorneys’ fees. This amount is included in prepayments and other current assets in the accompanying balance sheets. No amount has been accrued. The appeal was argued in December 2015, and we prevailed on that appeal on September 9, 2016. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a letter brief with the appellate court seeking reconsideration of the appellate decision, which request was denied. Plaintiffs filed a petition for certification with the Supreme Court of New Jersey on January 3, 2017, and we opposed that petition on January 18, 2017. The petition for certification remains pending. On January 12, 2017, the trial court entered an order authorizing the return of our escrowed funds in light of the appellate court’s decision on the merits in our favor.
Loss Contingency, Actions Taken by Court, Arbitrator or Mediator	In connection with a Birthday Cash promotional offer by Harrah’s Atlantic City, on March 19, 2010, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered a summary judgment in favor of a modified class of approximately 79,000 plaintiffs. The summary judgment found that Harrah’s Atlantic City violated the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. The penalty is $100 per incident, amounting to a potential exposure of up to $7.9 million. In March 2012, the judge held that the damages class, if any, should be based upon the number of individuals who redeemed certificates, not the number of certificates redeemed (as some plaintiffs had multiple certificates). As a result, the potential exposure under the judge’s ruling was decreased to $5.2 million. After the case was stayed to wait for a pending case in the New Jersey Supreme Court, the court reopened the case in July 2013. The decision in the New Jersey Supreme Court case clarified two aspects of the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, which support our contention that the existing judgment against us should be vacated and the case dismissed in our favor. In November 2013, the court denied both parties’ motions for reconsideration.
Pending Litigation [Member] \| Delaware Second Lien Lawsuit [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Lawsuit Filing Date	August 4, 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 issued by CEOC (the “CEOC 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
Loss Contingency, Name of Defendant	CEC and CEOC, Caesars Growth Partners, LLC (“CGP”), Caesars Acquisition Company (“CAC”), CERP, CES, Eric Hession, Gary Loveman, Jeffrey D. Benjamin, David Bonderman, Kelvin L. Davis, Marc C. Rowan, David B. Sambur, and Eric Press
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.
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 CEOC 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, Opinion of Counsel	CERP 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.
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 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago (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 of the CEOC restructuring, (b) the termination of the restructuring support agreement with the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders, or (c) further order of the Bankruptcy Court.
Pending Litigation [Member] \| Delaware First Lien Lawsuit [Member] \| Guarantee Obligations [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Loss Contingency, Lawsuit Filing Date	November 25, 2014
Loss Contingency, Name of Plaintiff	UMB Bank (“UMB”), as successor indenture trustee for CEOC’s 8.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2020 (the “CEOC 8.50% Senior Secured Notes”)
Loss Contingency, Domicile of Litigation	Delaware Chancery Court
Loss Contingency, Name of Defendant	CERP, CEC, CEOC, CAC, CGP, CES, and against individual past and present CEC board members Loveman, Benjamin, Bonderman, Davis, Press, Rowan, Sambur, Hession, Colvin, Kleisner, Swann, Williams, Housenbold, Cohen, Stauber, and Winograd
Loss Contingency, Allegations	alleging generally that defendants improperly stripped CEOC of certain assets, wrongfully effected a release of CEC’s parent guarantee of the CEOC 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.
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 a Restructuring Support and Forbearance Agreement entered into by CEC and CEOC with certain creditors (as amended, the “First Lien Bond RSA”), the lawsuit also has been stayed in its entirety (including with respect to CERP), with the consent of all of the parties to it.
Pending Litigation [Member] \| National Retirement Fund Lawsuit [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Litigation Settlement, Amount	$ 9.0
Settled Litigation [Member] \| National Retirement Fund Lawsuit [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
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 for the Northern District of Illinois (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, Settlement Agreement, Terms	No liability will be recorded by the CERP for the NRF Payments because (1) CERP will not be obligated to reimburse CEC for any portion of the payments related to the settlement and withdrawal liability baskets and (2) the payment related to the contribution basket will be accounted for as a prepayment toward future pension contributions. CERP is not obligated to reimburse CEC for the payments related to the settlement and withdrawal liability because CERP remained current on all contribution payments to the pension, and therefore the payments were not made on behalf of the CERP. CERP will reimburse CEC for its portion of the contribution basket in a manner similar to other pension contributions that are made on CERP’s behalf in the ordinary course of business.
Loss Contingency, Lawsuit Filing Date	January 8, 2015
Loss Contingency, Domicile of Litigation	United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
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, including the subsidiary that owns Harrah’s Atlantic City, 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, Additional Information	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.
Caesars Entertainment Corporation [Member] \| Settled Litigation [Member] \| National Retirement Fund Lawsuit [Member]
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Litigation Settlement, Amount	$ 45.0
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.

Caesars Entertainment Resort Properties, LLC 10-Q