So very pleased you're here.
I reject the premise that you're more rational to choose one (any) god over none to hedge your bets. It relies on quite a few faulty premises and in my view creates a falsely linear/binary decision.
We need to break this problem down. We need to begin from the concept that there may be a God amongst a very long list of false ones which just keep growing. But, we need to set aside any notion about different grades of salvation or damnation. Whilst I/you might agree that this is actually the case, Pascal's toy makes no such statement. We are discussing the toy.
VC outlined quite a few flaws (hopefully he'll repeat them here). One that he didn't mention is that the very concept/emphasis of damnation is (to my knowledge) more or less unique to Christianity/Islam. Given this puzzle relies on a premise of punishment it creates a false paradigm. Sorry, I can't seem to explain this clearly.
VC's arguments are largely captured in the clip he attached and I'll add the ones from Hitchens and Dawkins which add to that. I do not want to speak for VC, but I feel that the clips are stand alone and I do not intentionally mean to use them to put words in VC's mouth. I'll just stick to the clips.
Interesting point. What if the God is not a punisher? That falls into the realm that you still might as well believe because you did not know things were so chill with the Big Guy. You would be forgiven for all the stupidity that you undertook in your life. All the wickedness too, if that was what you were participating in in a false belief.
It was a waste of effort and costly in retrospect. Absolutely. However, before that piece of information is revealed, Pascal's wager says you have to bet anyway. You could not know it was a waste of effort until you got there. However, what if the Big Guy requires all sorts of stuff to be granted passage? There is no distinct probability shape here. Only uncertainty. Given the consequences are possibly damnation, you have to act in a way that minimizes the possibility of this unacceptable outcome. You need to set aside any notion of morality here. This is just a concept. It might be that God requires you to eat three donuts a week. Just think of it that way. Any other embellishment is actually separate to the wager itself. The wager does not claim to be moral. It's just a toy.
But for me the most problematic issue is that you will actually be punished MORE for choosing the wrong God. Heresy is a much greater crime than apathy. So in that sense, we have a positive incentive NOT to choose a particular religion. As such, the most logical way of hedging your bets is to choose no God, and thus avoid choosing the wrong one. Pascal's concept only makes sense if we look strictly to Christianity vs Atheism (or strictly Islam or Atheism), but falls apart when we consider that multiple religions conflict, and punish us for choosing the wrong one.
This is the same argument against the wager that is considered to debunk this concept. It is quite possible that what you say is correct. If it is, then this wager is junk. Dawkins and the clip which VC provided put this forward as reasons why the wager is false. However, the wager is simply a construct. This construct does not make allowance for punishing Gods who punish more or less for different beliefs.
I think what these comments, yours included, are saying is that the wager differs from the set up that seems reasonable. Hence it is junk. No problem with saying the toy is junk if you regard it as unrepresentative of the truth as you believe it to be. However, that is different to saying that the toy is internally inconsistent. It is not. It just might not be suitable for the kind of cosmos that you/they had in mind. What do they expect? It's a toy. To solve that problem as you outline it requires calculus! Calculus probably was not even invented by the time he died or became unproductive. No wonder the wager looks oversimplified.
If I look like I am disagreeing on this point, it is because I am saying the logic is internally consistent. That is very different than saying it is actually useful for this exact situation as you and many others perceive it to be. It may be more useful in other specialized situations. For a theory which is debunked, it sure does some important stuff outside of the religious terrain.