Second, Verb, you seem to be not understanding that the entire point is that the possibility of one of the 100 condemning you is what constitutes the game theory outcome of it being necessary for you to be that one.
i understand it just fine—everything you're saying is logically sound
i literally just don't like that you used the word "guarantee," because it's simply inaccurate
let's change the scenario so that all 100 people make their choice simultaneously, and that you're part of the group—you, with your supreme knowledge of game theory, mark down the first option as your choice, and against all odds, it's revealed to you that everyone else voted for the second option
what would your reaction be? the way i see it, it's a good thing the option to relinquish your immortality was baked into the hypothetical, otherwise you'd have the biggest fucking egg on your face
You're for some reason stuck way back at unlikely and impossible
i don't see it as "way back"—i see this question as further along the conversation than what you're pondering, because the root of it is more concerned with the ethics of the situation, which is a fundamentally deeper question than "what's the best strategy to 'win' at this game"
you're trying to play the game to "win" it, because you think reducing your choice down to what produces the "highest self-benefit" is how you "win" a game like this
you're the kind of guy who watches a show like Squid Game for the games and not the message
a more high-minded person could argue that the "best" option would be to put your own personal comfort at stake and be willing to have yourself tortured for all eternity for the sake of keeping your principles, your innocence, or even just maintaining a clean conscience
the way you look at the "game" only applies if you equate making it out alive and unharmed as "winning," which is understandable if incredibly basic and middlebrow