1. It is just as likely that the Christian God exists as not.
2. If 1, then it is better to believe in the Christian God and be wrong than not to believe in the Christian God and be wrong.
3. Therefore, it is better to believe in the Christian God than not.
I appreciate your candor. Whether or not one believes the premises are true, my goal was to provide a fair presentation of Pascal's Wager. In order to understand his argument correctly, the part of the argument that gets all the "air-time" (premise 2), must be taken in context with the rest of the Pensees, in which Pascal presented his argument for premise 1. I don't believe even Pascal himself would have accepted the argument as a good one based on premise 2 alone.
So Pascal's wager is fine. What it really boils down to, as usual, is whether one believes the arguments and evidence is sufficient for one to reasonably believe in the probability that the Christian god exists (premise 1). In this case, at least 50% probable.