The group headed by Chicago billionaire Neil Bluhm is betting big on the Pittsburgh casino, but not as big as state regulators.

Pittsburgh Gaming Holdings LLC, the group formed by Mr. Bluhm to take over the North Shore slots parlor from Don Barden, and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board are at odds over how much revenue the casino will generate. But in either case, the annual revenue projections are hefty -- too much so, according to one gaming analyst.

The fate of the proposed transfer of the slots license from Mr. Barden to Mr. Bluhm could be decided Thursday, when the gaming board reconvenes a public hearing into the ownership change. The hearing will be held at 10 a.m. in the State Museum Auditorium in Harrisburg.

State Sens. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, and Jane Orie, R-McCandless, yesterday urged the board to hold at least one hearing on the transfer in Pittsburgh, a request the board quickly rebuffed.

In a letter to the board, they said there is a legal obligation to hold hearings on license applications in the municipality in which the casino is located. A Pittsburgh hearing also would maximize public participation, they said. Both oppose the transfer and want the license rebid.

Gaming board spokesman Doug Harbach said the board had considered holding Thursday's hearing in Pittsburgh, "but it was not feasible.''

Mr. Bluhm's group is predicting that the casino will generate more than half a billion dollars in gross annual revenue by its fifth year of operation.

The $507.4 million estimate is on the shabby side compared to that of the gaming board's financial suitability task force. It is wagering the casino will hit $611.6 million in revenues in the fifth year, based on 5,000 slot machines.

The numbers posted on the gaming board's Web site yesterday provide the first updated revenue estimates since Mr. Barden won the slots license in 2006, only to lose control of the $800 million project last month when he was unable to secure permanent financing.

Pittsburgh Gaming estimated the casino, with 3,250 slot machines, would generate $427.8 million in gross revenues in its first year of operation compared with the gaming board's calculation of $362.4 million.

That is the only time its projections are higher than the gaming board's, with the gap widening each year for the next four years, as the number of slot machines increases to 5,000.

Dan Fee, a Pittsburgh Gaming spokesman, said the group is "purposely being conservative" in its estimates.

"It's always better to be conservative in matters like this and certainly with the credit markets as they are it allows us to fully explain and justify the deal," he said.

New York rating agencies have expressed concern about the amount of debt involved in the $800 million project and whether the casino would produce enough revenue to meet its obligations.

Mr. Fee said the revenue projections "make the deal workable for us." Mr. Bluhm's group also is prepared to invest $170 million in the project to bolster the financing. That's far more than Mr. Barden, who was borrowing virtually all of the money needed for the construction.

Pittsburgh Gaming hasn't decided yet whether it will increase the number of slot machines to 5,000, as Mr. Barden had proposed to do. Mr. Fee said the group is "reserving the option to not move to 5,000 unless market forces warrant it."

Both sets of estimates are higher than those calculated by the gaming board and Mr. Barden's company, PITG Gaming, before the slots license was awarded in 2006. At that time, the state estimated Pittsburgh casino revenues at $482.8 million in its stabilized year, typically four to five years out, compared with PITG Gaming's $452.2 million.

Comparing those estimates is like "mixing apples and oranges," Mr. Harbach said, because the older numbers are based on 2005 dollars while the new ones are based on 2009 dollars.

Nicholas Danna, senior gaming analyst for Sterne Agee & Leach Inc. in New Orleans, said he believes the new projections are overly optimistic given the economy and the downturn in the gambling industry.

"Essentially gaming revenues are declining in almost every market in the United States currently. Given that backdrop, it's difficult to understand why projections for a new property would suddenly become greater today than they were at some point in the past," he said.

Mr. Danna noted that the Pittsburgh casino will have competition from The Meadows Racetrack & Casino, where an expanded permanent slots parlor is being built, and West Virginia, where table games are permitted.

"A casino [in Pittsburgh] will do quite well but I'm not convinced that it will do that well," he said of the projections. "There is competition and there will be additional competition."

Mr. Harbach defended the gaming board numbers. He said that virtually all of the casinos up and running in Pennsylvania have outperformed revenue projections. They produced almost 10 percent more in combined revenue last month than they did in July 2007, despite the downturn in the industry nationwide.

"Our estimates have tended to be pretty conservative," he said.

Another analyst, Joseph Weinert, senior vice president of Spectrum Gaming Group, had no problem with the latest revenue projections.

"At first blush this seems to be a reasonable estimate of performance for a casino that has a monopoly in a good-sized metropolitan market," he said.

Those who wish to testify at next week's hearing must register with the gaming board by 5 p.m. Tuesday by calling 1-717-346-8300.