If this problem is to be seen as equivalent to the counterfactual mugging then that's evidence against the logic espoused by counterfactual mugging.

I'm far FAR from certain they're equivalent, mind you -- one point of difference is I can choose to commit to honor all favourable bets, even ones made without my specific consent, but there's no point to committing to honoring my non-existence, as there's no alternative me who would be able to honor it likewise.

At some point we must see lunacy for what it is. Achilles can outrun the turtle, if someone logically proves he can't, then it's the logic used that's wrong, not the reality.