As of August 9, if you bet on whether the fight goes 9 full rounds you have to lay 160 to 100 if you say "no" and you get 130 to 100 if you say "yes".

If you want to bet that Mayweather will win by specifically a decision you get 120 to 100 odds.

If I bet 100 on will go and you bet 100 on Mayweather to win by a decision I will do ten dollars better than you if you win.

And I will do 230 dollars better if the other guy wins by a decision. Or if there is a knockout by either fighter in the tenth eleventh or twelfth round. Because I will win and you will lose.

Management at the MGM properties may try to claim that this absurd situation is allowed to arise because they have a lot of money bet on Mayweather by decision and are trying to discourage more bets on that side. But that is an unacceptable answer for several reasons. They have more than enough bankroll to handle a loss. They are insulting their customers. And finally there is the fact that they are discouraging one bet to the point of enticing a much more lucrative bet that fully includes the Mayweather bet.

The previous management was making similar errors until I personally notified a bigshot there whose name you can guess. They are now gone. The new guy however seems no better.

(Note: This post was written as a separate thread and in a fairly simple style because it might be reprinted in general public publications. I grant permission for this to be reprinted with attribution)

I was hoping MGM needed to hire more slip writers .

They put up absurdly juiced markets because people are stupid enough to bet stuff in the dumbest way possible? Stop the presses. Particularly the ones printing their parlay cards that rape the tards the exact same way every day.

This man is a top poker strategist.

It's **** like this that makes everyone think all poker players are ******s.

This is why I've ridiculed you before.

Was going to post almost exactly this.

DS; what the hell happened to you?

IIRC a strip book was offering -110 for side/totals for an NBA game, and +100 for the home team and over parlay.

None of you know what you are talking about. They put up the terrible number for Mayweather /decision because the guy in charge doesn't want any more action on that bet even though the odds are much higher elsewhere. It is NOT because people are so stupid that they will bet it anyway. But his reasoning is ridiculous. He could make it 1.40 and get a lot more bets that earns EV. MGM can easily afford the loss. And if somehow that wasn't true than why is he laying 1.30 if you bet the fight will go 9 rounds?

What is the difference between that and my example above? Neither wanted any action on that bet but could have offered much better odds.

So the fight can only go 9 rounds if Mayweather wins by decision?

No, none of us know what YOURE talking about. Seriously, aren't you an author? Surely you can write better than this dave.

I showed the lines to Bobby Baldwin and he got it changed almost immediately. Mayweather by decision is now 1.60.

This was not about simply offering insultingly low odds. Nor about offering bad odds while offering much better odds on a "correlated" event. The bad odds they offered was on a SUBSET of the events that you could get better odds on. Right in front of everyone's face. Bobby was not happy.

you showed em dave

it is a 12 round fight so 9 full rounds and mayweather by dec are not as inclusive as you imply

Probably because he, like the rest of us, is tired of dip**** poker players creaming themselves thinking they're a savant because they spent ten minutes analysing a circus boxing spectacle with piss stain limits.

It's completely inclusive. Why would you ever bet mayweather by decision at -130 when you can bet that the fight will go over 9 rounds at -120? You should take the over 9 rounds every time. Do you not see why? This is common sense.

However, i do admit that the OP was a bumbling, mumbling mess and hard to understand wtf he was even talking about.

Yes.

No.

OP is utterly clueless.

I don't understand what is happening in this thread, the point is that for Mayweather to win by decision, the fight has to last more than 9 rounds.

The over 9 rounds bet wins in EVERY situation the Mayweather decision bet wins, and ALSO other situations. Mayweather decision bet is strictly worse, how are people not getting it?

Well people like you who don't understand the basic rules of the sport they are betting on are commenting.

So ya, how are you not getting it?

you are right, the odds of the fight being stopped for an accidental foul between the 4th and the 9th round causing a technical decision are certainly relevant enough to make the Mayweather decision bet worse :/

It isn't technically strictly worse, but that circumstance is not remotely enough to warrant what OP is talking about.

Immaterial. He is objectively wrong.

So technical decision is graded as a decision?

Don't get why anyone is bashing DS for pointing out a faulty line?

It was obv a mistake, not MGM being crooked and wanting to fleece droolers out of their 100$ bets on May by dec.

Yeah, a lot of people managing props are indeed ******ed and make these mistakes, among more serious ones; it happens online all the time too.

Not really news or anything extraordinary.

Most places except 5dimes afaik, where they like to payout inside the distance but keep both your TKO/KO/DQ and "wins by 12 round decision" bets (terminology that was changed post facto from "wins by decision" some years ago, but even then same rules applied).

Yes, a technical decision is graded as a decision. For the people who don't know boxing, this means that if an accidental foul results in an injury where one fighter cannot continue, they stop the fight and go to the scorecards. For most commissions, if the fight is in the 4th round or later, it would go to the scorecards. Before that the fight would be declared a "no contest".

In other words, if an accidental foul occurred (for example, head butt) and either fighter was unable to continue, Floyd could win a decision AND the fight could go under. The one bet is not a subset of the other.

I am aware this has been pointed out in a roundabout way. I just wanted to clarify.