Okay, now that I've read section 2 of the paper (where it gives the two decompositions), it doesn't seem so insightful. Here's my summary of the Wolpert/Benford argument:

"There are two Bayes nets to represent the problem: Fearful, where your decision y causally influences Omega's decision g, and Realist, where Omega's decision causally influences yours.

"Fearful: P(y,g) = P(g|y) * P(y), you set P(y). Bayes net: Y -> G. One-boxing is preferable.
"Realist: P(y,g) = P(y|g) * P(g), you set P(y|g). Bayes net: G -> Y. Two-boxing is preferable."

My response: these choices neglect the option presented by AnnaSalamon and Eliezer_Yudkowsky previously: that Omega's act and your act are causally influenced by a common timeless node, which is a more faithful representation of the problem statement.