While Cort Ammon's answer is correct, the wager must begin by assigning values. If we take a Bayesian approach we can begin blind, and must only remain coherent through the advent of new evidence, washing out the priors, as they say.
This could be the basis of a very interesting, even fascinating study of the history human thought, wonderfully absurd as it attempts to determine what counts as "new evidence" for immortality or mortality. It is far above my own capacities to even begin. But it could be done, setting up some silly standard and dumping all those notions into the Bayesian grinder.
But to the point.
In the scenario you describe, it seems you have drastically undervalued mortality in the starting wager. The nearly universal "curse of immortality" begins with Tithonus and continues through Walking Dead or Singularity myths. For the "immortal" to hold onto all features of "life" would make them "lifeless." It is a contradiction. One cannot have both immortality, like Tithonus, and eternal youth, like Dorian Grey. Or, for that matter, desires, locomotion, and will, but lack of recognition, like the Walking Dead.
Why not? To live is to change. Within parameters, one of which is finitude. Given all the probabilities within the infinite, in which all that could happen will, which aspect of "life" or "me" does the wager insist cannot change? What is to constitute and define the "identity" of this eternal unchanging "me"? Once "defined" (rendered finite) the "me" would already seem to be lifeless. Monarch of the mineral kingdom, god of worms.
This is why many thinkers from the Greeks to Heidegger point to the definitional (finite) value of mortality. The Gods, it was said, were silly, trivial, moving aimlessly through physical forms. They could not die. Thus they cannot be heroes, they cannot be meaningful. Meaning in our sense requires finitude.
Still, it is interesting to speculate about "being immortal." I am not sure if "being immortal" is actually a logical contradiction. But I don't think your wager scenario gets deeply enough into the problem.