Pascal's wager kind of falls apart if you consider possibility that you might not be worshipping the right god. If you pick YHVH but find yourself before the scale of Maat, you're going to have a bad time.

Yes. That's the logical problem that, in my view, renders Pascal's Wager invalid to the point of silliness.

I also have questions about the assumption that we consciously "choose" what to believe in such a way that we can just decide to switch beliefs. I suspect most people believe whatever they believe because they have been presented with some reasoning or evidence that they find persuasive. Changing beliefs would thus require being more persuaded by different reasoning or evidence, not by deciding to believe differently "just in case".

I note that no comments on the Atheist's Wager have been made here. It seems much more sensible to me than Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's wager ends up very fun coupled with Monty Hall, such that as long as any religious belief can be falsified, if the primary motivation for belief is Pascal's wager, you should switch beliefs whenever any other belief which was around when you made your initial selection is falsified.

Thus given the number of failed doomsday cults regularly coming up short, anyone who has held beliefs for a few decades is due for a switch if they care about Pascal's wager.