This sort of reasoning makes sense if you must decide on which box to take prior to learning the details of your situation (a.k.a. in a “veil of ignorance”), and cannot change your choice even after you discover that, e.g., taking the Left box will kill you. In such a case, sure, you can say “look, it’s a gamble, and I did lose big this time, but it was a very favorable gamble, with a clearly positive expected outcome”. (Although see Robyn Dawes’ commentary on such “skewed” gambles. However, we can let this pass here.)
But that’s not the case here.
It is the case, in way. Otherwise the predictor could not have predicted your action. I’m not saying you actively decide what to do beforehand, but apparently you are running a predictable decision procedure.
It is the case, in way. Otherwise the predictor could not have predicted your action. I’m not saying you actively decide what to do beforehand, but apparently you are running a predictable decision procedure.