Best analysis of Newcomb's Paradox I've seen so far - boring. There's nothing to see here. It all comes down to how you model the situation and what your priors are.

I find it hard to imagine a situation where I have more belief in the Predictor's ability than the ability of the Predictor to give false evidence that I can't figure out the trick of.

I'd two box because I see no reason to risk of losing anything. In the face of perceived trickery, I'm all the more betting on causality.