I too have a moral opposition to gambling. I think though, for me personally, I’d probably take the bet (with metaknowledge of fairness) and then afterwards think badly of myself.
If it were understood to be a fair proposition, you could make the losing penalty $5,000 or $50,000 and I’d take the bet (brushing aside the original and revised amounts of $100 and $500). If the odds are even, as a coin toss indicates, then the payoff is so much more that it makes the wager worthwhile. Now, make it $500,000 and you have a different story. The odds are still favorable, but a half mill is a tremendous amount to lose (for me). I’d guess that my willingness would run out at a hundred or two hundred thousand in pursuit of a cool million, even though I understand the statistics of the wager. Again, all of this supposes a fair coin and fair toss.
I don’t gamble, not because I’m opposed to it but because I suck at it. When I have gambled I have lost. But $100 for a 50/50 shot at $1 million? Yes, sign me up. Assuming we can verify it’s legit, of course.
I avoid commercial gambling because the house take makes it a losing proposition. I avoid social gambling because of my experience that even trivial stakes generate quarrels and ill will among friends.
Neither would apply to the scenario described, so yes I would take it. But of course no one will ever offer it.
I’m not a gambler. Maybe once in a year I’ll play a money poker game or a slot machine or a lottery ticket. Maybe. But I’d be crazy not to take this bet. So, yeah. I’m not entirely sure where my cut-off point would be for me to take the bet. Maybe somewhere around $50K-$100K.
Really? But I take then that you would only bet that much if the rules allowed you to play more than once? 
I’m not a gambler, but if this is legit, I’m in.
It becomes a lot less weird, and less about psychology and more about practical considerations, when you consider (as pointed out in the Wiki article) that the party offering you the deal would need to have a bankroll greater than the world’s GDP, in order to give the bet an expected value of more than $50. So the “infinite expected payout” can only exist in a scenario which is extremely unrealistic even by the standards of this kind of thought experiment. And that’s even before we bring in the concept of diminishing marginal utility of money.
Back to the OP, I also would take the bet in a heartbeat, even at a stake of much more than $100, if I were convinced that it was legit. But in almost any real-world scenario I would be certain that there was a catch somewhere, and would refuse to play even if I wasn’t sure exactly how they were going to fleece me.
Dude, I referenced it two posts earlier and not so much as a by-your-leave.