You wouldn't have enough evidence to even find the hypothesis "God exists" much less "God exists and is hiding" - even people who have no concept of privileging the hypothesis would be able to point that out to you.

The original point of this scenario was as a rebuttal to Pascal's Wager, specifically that the hypothesis "god exists and will send you to hell for atheism" isn't significantly more likely than "god exists and will send you to hell for believing." Even if this scenario is unlikely, it's plausible enough to illustrate that the massive utility difference implied by the believer's scenario has no logical reason to dominate over other unlikely massive utility differences.