Christian apologists who like to use Pascal's Wager will argue that we shouldn't gamble on our future, but if that's the case then why do they offer gambling as way of looking at what they are offering? Pascal's Wager is founded on the idea of betting — rather than an argument designed to show that one's religion or theism are true or even likely true, the argument is designed to convince you that you are better off betting one way rather than another. Even in this it fails.
Given the premises of Christian theology, it shouldn't be necessary to "bet" that it's safer to become a Christian. The truth and reality of Christianity should not only be plain, but it should be so obvious that there should be no reason to belong to any other religion, never mind reject religion and theism entirely. Somehow, though, most people in the world manage to find better reasons to remain part of the dominant religions of their cultures and atheists fail to find any good reasons to accept any theistic systems at all.
So it would seem that Pascal's Wager may have a point that we need to "bet" if no option is unambiguously correct, but accepting that premise means denying some of the fundamentals of Christianity itself. Therefore, if we take the Wager and do any betting, the odds against traditional, orthodox Christianity suddenly become very long in comparison to other alternatives — and, contrary to what Pascal's Wager suggests, there are far more options than just the two it tries to offer.
In this, Pascal's Wager is like a dishonest casino boss telling you that you're only allowed to bet on two numbers on the roulette wheel, or that you're only allowed one way of making a seven in craps. Would you gamble your money in such a casino? Granted, the casino always wins in the long run, but you're a fool if you bet your money in a casino that goes out of its way to rig the games to such a degree and it's equally foolish to accept the terms and conditions that Christian apologists insist upon when they offer Pascal's Wager.