Clarifying boxing lines

[nj]

I just joined the forum, Im a devote follower of boxing, but new to betting. I was number crunching today, and something doesn?t make sense to me, hopefully someone can explain: I found Mayweather ?235. At other books, I found Mayweather decision +119, and Mayweather KO +425

Here are the two options:

lay 235 to win 100

Or, use that 235 for two bets:

lay 170 to win 202 Mayweather by dec
(I?d say 60% chance)

lay 65 to win 276 Mayweather by ko
(I?d say 15-20% chance, late stoppage from cuts or Hatton?s corner stopping it)

In the first option, I win 100 on a 235 wager. In the 2nd option, I win either 106 or 137 on the same 235 wager. Not only that, but my odds of winning 137 are above 50%! Am I missing something? It seems ridiculous that books can offer underdog lines on an outcome favourite, and a lucrative backup to boot. Is there a benefit to the ?235 line I don?t see?

Thanks


ps regarding the fight itself, my main concern is the promoters will want a draw or close fight to create a mega-rematch in UK, or GBP wants to build up Hatton for an INSANELY profitable UK match with DLH. This is possible if Mayweather coasts and purposely aims for a close decision, I thought he coasted vs DLH to create interest in a rematch. It sounds ridiculous, but boxing is ridiculous.

If Mayweather is honestly focused on winning the fight and building up a Cotto match, he could easily stop Hatton rounds 9-12, provided his hands don?t break and the ref doesn?t allow excessive holding and rabbit punches

 

[s_dooley24]

If the fight is a draw you would lose both the decision and ko props, but if you had PBF straight your bet would be a push and refunded.

 

[nj]

jeez, how did I miss that?

that messed me up on Cotto-Mosley: old fighter won't get close decision over young cashcow, KO unlikely, draw at best for Mosley, just like Hop/Taylor. I took props and lost ($20), when the obvious bet was Cotto straight and small Mosley KO +700, but I was scared to lose Cotto straight on a draw. How embarassing.


Thank you for the explanation.