Both of the negative consequents are immaterial because the precedent is untrue. This is simple logic.
Both statements reduce to this:
If this thing that is true were not true, then (insert some arbitrary prognostication here).
The fact is that the latter statement can never be evaluated, and will never be evaluated, because the purported condition that supposedly invokes it is impossible. If we were running a computer program, the latter statement would never execute, and is incalculable, and hence arbitrary, and hence meaningless.
What both Paul and Pascal purport would be true if what is true were untrue is therefore immaterial. They could substitute literally any kind of nonsense in the consequent because we would already have discarded logic if we were to believe the consequent of an untrue precedent.
Let's also try a little empirical sampling over these arguments, shall we?
"If there is no God..." But wait, there is a God. Therefore ignore what follows, it can't and won't happen, period.
"If there is a God..." There is a God. So let's apply the modus ponens rule of logic, and obtain that the entire so-called wager is equivalent to the statement affixed as the consequent to the true branch.
"If there were no resurrection..." But wait, there is a resurrection. Therefore ignore the preposterous consequent; it is unreachable.
"If there is a resurrection..." There is resurrection through Christ. Therefore keep these consequents and simplify out the first conditional; it has already evaluated as true.
By simple logic and mathematical reduction, both arguments have reduced to what is true, and the speculations about what is untrue have self-eliminated. The speculation is moot.
We could say that if God did not exist, the Universe would crash because of a division by zero. We could also claim to be unicorns. Any and all statements placed in the consequent are inherently meaningless. You could pour all the junk in the world into them without changing the meaning a whit. Because they will never be evaluated, you can regard them as a write-only memory.
The expectation, or better yet, the assured outcome, is that the faithful Christian will experience never-ending happiness because of his faith in Christ, while those who hold no such faith will endure endless torment on account of their denial of self-evident reality. Both a sampling-based procedure and vanilla logic prove this to be unconditionally true. Even when sampling "probabilistically", the expectation yields certainty.
If something that is true were untrue, then anything goes.
If what is true is true, then reality holds.
So in that regard the two statements are equivalent.