Now imagine that this bet is somehow forced upon you, either by the government, or by punishment in such a way where you have no choice but to take this bet.
By ignoring the group of individuals, who given a choice between "bet or die", choose die. You are effectively cherry-picking your data. Any answer to a question based on a fallacy is tainted. For example:
By a highly improbable event (miracle) one of the players who chose "die" doesn't die and escapes.
This escapee organizes and leads underground movement to destroy this vile bet and give all the freedom of choice.
He wins and the sinister bet is illuminated and never used again.
How does this scenario factor in your betting scheme?
If out of 100 players only 3 bet and the rest chose death. How does that impact the relevance of your bet?
Finally, your assumption that the threat of death will lead to a bet choice 100% of time is a hasty generalization based on your personal bias.