In other words if your hard coding something then hard coding pick B gets you 1,000,000 but hard coding pick AB gets you 1,000 assuming the predictor looks at your source code.
As to the game show you would gave a series of people where people who pick B get 1,000,000 and people who pick AB get 1,000 now which group looks like idiots?
Edit: Depending on the accuracy of the predictions, it's less about information traveling into the past as it is being the type of person that chooses B.
Every single person who picked only box B left $1000 on the table. That's a bare fact. You don't even need to know or care what the prediction is to know that.
In general when someone leaves $1000 that they could have had, no strings attached, that's a less desirable outcome than the one where they had the extra $1000.
If your the kind of person that picks AB then you get 1,000.
If your the kind of person that picks B you get 1,000,000.
There are no other options.
PS: Consider, the 'prediction' is having you walk on stage and given the choice a random number of times greater than 20. Except, one of them will be randomly the one that counts.
As I have said, the prediction method or accuracy is largely irrelevant to the actual paradox, aside from a means to incentivize people to behave in an obviously irrational way :).
(I don't really think that, the other principle of decision for one-boxers is induction based on prior observations. The whole point of the paradox is neither side has a decisive argument against the other. The important point here is that free will/determinism, possibility of perfect simulation, etc. are not part of the problem this paradox is intended to illuminate.)
Except there are two occasions to chose B. On is on the stage and the other is as part of the model the predictor uses. And in that case you really want to be modeled as someone that chooses B.
In the end what happens on stage is irrelevant as 99.9% of the value comes from how your modeled .1% comes from what you do on stage. So, how do you get modeled as someone that chooses B?
Well, if their accurate the only way to influence that prediction is choosing B on stage.
And yes, with accurate modeling information can travel backward in time. Just consider people taking an umbrella to work because of a weather prediction. In this case the rain caused people to bring an umbrella before it happened.
Now, you can argue that picking AB is the rational choice, but if it consistently get's a worse outcome then it's irrational behavior. What makes it irrational? The assumption it can't influence what's under the table.
PS: The only counter argument is you have 'free will' and thus your choices can't be accurately modeled.
The rain didn't cause this; ️the prediction of rain did. Comments like this, and your strange focus on simulation and modeling, lead me to believe that you are a little out of your element here. The questions raised and the paradox regarding choice are present no matter what the predictor's mechanism is, whether it is a perfect simulation or psychic connection with your mind, or messages from God.
PS: The implications of not having free will are uncomfortable, but they directly fall out of having a completely accurate predictor. (And yes, this is often weakened to a semi accurate predictor.)
Also, given that the entire point of the paradox is to illustrate a problem in decision theory, it seems a particular waste of time to deny that anything has a decision. Read the original statement of the problem. Read it closely. Don't read junk on the Internet or jabbering by Christian apologists desperate for credentials. The problem has absolutely nothing to do with free will vs. determinism.
Sure, if you can lie to the oracle and say you’re going to pick B and actually pick AB then clearly that’s the better option, but if they can look past that lie and see how you think (aka read your source code) then that’s not a viable option. If you say to the oracle I am going to pick B because you know what I am going to do and something predictable changings you’re mind you still lose. The only option is to pick B and for that to be truth, and if it’s the truth you pick B on stage.
PS: As apologists, you seem to be stuck with the idea that thought is anything other than a predictable electro chemical process in your brain no different than a complex computer program. We can make pseudo random choices which are very useful in decision theory, but ‘free will’ does not exist. In the end we are no less predictable than the rain.
The point is about decision theory, which has two approaches considered "rational" that yield different results. That's why it's a paradox. It's all spelled out in the paper: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/rjohns/nozick_newcomb.pdf
Go ahead, search the document for the phrases "free will" or "determinism." I'll wait.
The fact that to an observer who knows the contents of the boxes (say, the moderator or an audience) you always look like an idiot for taking only one box and leaving money on the table, should be a huge red flag.