I see we really are talking about different Newcomb "problem"s. I took back my down vote. So one of our problems should have another name, or at least a qualifier.

I suppose it is true that some people have intuitions that persist in leading them astray even when the probability is set to %100. In that sense it may still have some value if it helps to isolate and illuminate these biases.

I don't think Newcomb's problem (mine) is so trivial. And I wouldn't call belief in the triangle inequality a bias.

The contents of box 1 = (a>=0)

The contents of box 2 = (b>=0)

2-boxing is the logical deduction that ((a+b)>=a) and ((a+b)>=b).

I do 1-box, and do agree that this decision is a logical deduction. I find it odd though that this deduction works by repressing another logical deduction and don't think I've ever see this before. I would want to argue that any and every logical path should work without contradiction.