the perfectly honest, all knowing Omega tells you that you're not the simulation but the actual person and the simulation has already been done

Then the prediction has been based on a simulation that took place under different circumstances, since Omega (being perfectly honest) did not say this to the simulation.

But as others have said, this is beside the point. After reading all of these irrelevant objections and the irrelevant responses to them, I'm convinced that (at least when addressing people who understand decision theory up to the point of doing calculations with statistics) it's better to phrase the question so that Omega is simply a clever human being who has achieved very high accuracy with very high correlation on a very large number of previous trials, instead of bringing perfection into it.

I'm thinking something like this:

• 30 cases where Omega predicts one-boxing but two-boxing takes place,
• 70 cases where Omega predicts two-boxing but one-boxing takes place,
• 270 cases where Omega predicts two-boxing and two-boxing takes place,
• 630 cases where Omega predicts one-boxing and one-boxing takes place.

Also, make the amounts $1 and $1000 so that utility will be very close to linear in amount of money (at least to middle-class First-Worlders like me).