I'm interested too at some point -- there seem to be so many arguments against Pascal's wager, (expressed much more amusingly to people who ever studied measure theory in probability). I think the confusion often comes because people arguing against Pascal's Wager assume God-as-commonly-understood is clearly untenable, and is no more likely that any other, hypothetical, belief system (in which case I don't think Pascal's Wager does make sense); whereas people arguing for imagine that God-as-commonly-understood, along with a relatively small number of other options, are the only plausible choices (in which case, Pascal's Wager does make sense).