The core premise of Pascal's Wager is the notion of a god that needs human belief and obedience so badly that it will: A) threaten everlasting torture to get it; and B ) reward faked belief and obedience that's only in it for a promised payoff. What sort of a god would be that desperate?
Obedience, praises, offerings of money, cattle, etc., are only valuable to an entity that is not much more powerful than the beings offering the obedience and gifts. Q: Why did the Pharaohs need obedient Egyptians? A: 'Cause the pyramids they wanted weren't gettin' built without 'em. "Obedience," etc. is only of value if the beings doing the obeying can provide goods and services the ruler can't provide for him/herself with less effort than it takes to gather the followers. So, the god of Pascal's Wager is necessarily a small god, not much more powerful than the humans whose belief and obedience it needs so badly. That desperate need is its confession of weakness.
Furthermore, a god who needed human obedience (and/or money, livestock offerings, whatever) that badly would act to insure its access to those things, and could be expected to do all in its power to prevent any other beings from collecting the goodies in its place. Yet what do we observe? No god or goddess ever shows up to scoop the money out of collection plates or move in to the temple, cathedral, or parsonage, wear the fine robes and jeweled diadems, pleasure itself with the willing, nubile/virile young followers, or enjoy the power and status that comes with having its personal preferences passed into law. Who does show up? Human beings. Clergy, "prophets," "gurus," and other quite ordinary human "spokesmen" (and they're almost always men) are always the ones who collect. "On the god's behalf," of course.
Do the math. The answer's pretty obvious, don't you think?