@TheMiddleWay It counters the 50/50 nature. The wager claims it safer to believe. If you look at the number of gods, it is clear that believing in any one god does not give you appreciably better odds than disbelief.
So it is a rebuttal.

@TheMiddleWay But in roulette, you know one of the numbers will be rolled. And there are not a variety of contrary results for choosing various options. If your number comes up (and we will pretend you can't choose color or ranges for this example), you win. If it doesn't, you lose exactly how much you bet.
Pascal's wager forgets that religions typically demand more than mere belief, that some religions believe that practitioners of other religions will be condemned worse for their beliefs in false gods, and that various actions could be considered as sinful or godly, depending on religion.
In the context of all of that, belief in a particular god is a wager with terrible odds, and the belief in no god may or may not be as good or better.
Combine that with the idea that believing only as a safe bet would likely not fool an omniscient god, and a truly benevolent god should understand disbelief when not giving any indication it exists, and you find that the wager is not nearly as positive as Pascal presents.
In short, you risk making any god angrier and angrier by choosing to believe something patently untrue.

@TheMiddleWay also, please note that Pascal's wager indicates that the "safe" bet is choosing belief. In your example of roulette, I remain wealthier by never betting on a number.

@TheMiddleWay again, the point of Pascal's wager is that he frames belief as the "safe" bet. It is not. If it were framed as long odds, we would be in agreement.

@TheMiddleWay But he is very specifically indicating that we should take the wager. He indicates that it is better to believe than to not. In his reckoning, it is the best bet to believe, rather than disbelieve. Which is still patently untrue once you take into account the number of gods humans have created over the course of history and their contradictory natures.
Pascal frames it as 50/50 with a prize for belief and no prize for disbelief. In reality, given the many religions to choose from and the cost of belief, you are far better off choosing disbelief. If there is a god, it obscures itself very well and would likely respect disbelief more than believing simply for the potential reward. And most religions restrict you, want money, and recommend attendance, so you wager far more in belief than disbelief.
With all of that in mind, our odds seem better on disbelief, which is the contrary position to his wager.

@TheMiddleWay I quite understand that atheists, theists, and agnostics view things differently, but that does not make Pascal's view correct, nor counter the idea that some gods are depicted as "jealous" and would be more angry at a worshipper of another god than a nonbeliever. All I am saying is that Pascal's interpretation (basically the assumption that you would be choosing between the right god or no God), is flawed.
You are right that certainty of odds is impossible in a game in which we actually can't see the playing field. What I would say is that I can determine a few things: the Abrahamic traditions depict an omniscient, omnipotent god. If that god exists, but allows children to die painful deaths that are entirely outside their control, refuses to reveal to the world to stop holy wars and other nonsense, and requires blind faith...not only would I not want to worship that god, that god would know I did not truly believe. Hindu traditions actually do not require people to believe, though certain rituals are supposed to purge some of your negative karma, so you could be at a disadvantage. Shinto, similarly, does not require belief. A lot of ancient religions believed appealing to the gods helped them in this life, but had no specific requirement for entry into an afterlife.
You are right to say that I cannot know the odds. I can, however, know enough to say that the "coin toss" Pascal describes is inaccurate and that the rewards and losses vary greatly from one god to the next. Pascal's wager, as he presented it, is highly flawed.

To take the gambling analogy one step further, the likes of Franklin Graham and the prosperity pastors are the equivalent of the house. And the house always wins.

Savage!