(a) You are being a dick.

It took a non-trivial exertion in the direction of politeness to refrain from answering the rhetorical question "who is confused?" with a literal answer.

I certainly did not insult anyone in this thread.

Arguable. I would concede at least that you did not say anything insulting that you do not sincerely believe is warranted.

(b) The isomorphism is exact. The point is granularity. If the guy can avoid the punch 90% of the time (or more precisely guess what your punch decision algorithm will do in response to some inputs 90% of the time), and Omega guesses what you will do correctly 90% of the time, that ought to be sufficient to do the math on expected values, if you want to leave it there.

Doing expected value calculations on probabilistic variants of newcomb's problem is also old news. And results in one boxing unless the probability gets quite close to random guessing. Once again, if you choose a sufficiently different problem than Newcomb's (such as by choosing an accuracy sufficiently close to 0.5, reducing the payoff ratio or by positing that you are in fact more intelligent than Omega) then you have failed to respond to a relevant question (or an interesting question, for that matter).

If you say "well, rational people do X and not Y, end of story" that's fine. I am going to make my updates on you and move on.

Please do. I have likewise updated. Evidence suggests you are ill suited to considering counterfactual problems and unlikely to learn. My only recourse here is to minimize the damage you can do to the local sanity waterline. I'll leave further attempts at verbal interaction to the half a dozen others who have been attempting to educate you, assuming they have more patience than I.

A broader comment: I do math for a living. The issues of applicability of math to practical problems, and changing math models around is something I think about quite a bit.

See.