Jack mentions one big, valid flaw with Pascal's wager -- namely, an apparent inherent assumption that it's either the "Christian" God or no god at all. That's logically fallacious, although I think he had simply made that a given assumption of the scenario he described and might not have been meaning purposefully to be exclusive. He was more interested in "is it more sensible to believe in [a] god figure or not?"
Personally, my largest gripe about it was from a different angle: I don't think salvation and goodness comes from testing the winds and picking the most personally convenient choice, and I wouldn't want to follow a god who accepted people based on them "playing the odds" for their own benefit. That goes counter to anything I think is psychologically/spiritually healthy in people; it's just another form of self-gratification and self-interest.
However, I think we have to step back and consider more of Pascal's faith/philosophy. He was more fidelist, and he was approaching things from the angle that God cannot be proven by reason. In the end, the choice of God or not God was a personal choice (and of faith), not reached by logical conclusion.
So he wasn't proselytizing as much as simply saying that, if you can't prove God, no evidence to go on, and you have to make a pragmatic decision, then it makes sense logically to choose the option that provides you with the least amount of loss along with the greatest possibility of gain long-term (since we're talking about "eternity").
Hence, the risk of believing in a god and being wrong (in the sense god is not real) has a lower cost than not believing in god and being wrong (in the sense that god is real) and losing out for all eternity.
He didn't seem to mean it as a form of proselytizing, he was just stating the pragmatics -- a point the modern church seems to have failed to perceive, because it routinely steals his comments and promotes it as some reason why people have to believe in their version of god.
IOW, they've taken Pascal's comments and twisted them into some form of argument they use to convert people, but I don't think he really meant it that way.