For me there is only one true God. So we either worship and serve Him or not.
Pascal's wager depends on the 'better safe than sorry' philosophy that if you don't know whether there's a god or not, you've got everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing that he does exist.
Of course, when we broaden our worldview a little (scary, I know, but stay with me here) we see how absolutely pointless a wager it is. I can believe in god, or not--two choices, one in which I lose everything if I'm wrong, and one in which I lose nothing.
But wait! What if there are more than just one god? And I'm supposed to be worshiping several of them? Now there's three options--two in which I lose everything, one in which I lose nothing. What if it's actually a single god, but not the single god I was originally thinking about? Now there are four options, etc. etc. etc....
And that's just talking about various gods. What if reincarnation is actually the answer, but it only works if you believe in it? What if aliens will come and extract your soul at the moment of death, but only if you believe in them? The possibilities are literally endless, there's no concrete evidence for any of them, and with each new 'what if' the odds of choosing the right answer get lower and lower and lower....
In other words, using Pascal's Wager in any argument against non-believers is... well, stupid. No non-believer was ever convinced by it or ever will be.
But you don't even seem to understand the nature of the wager to begin with. Pascal's wager is based on agnosticism, not on confidence in the existence of a specific god.