I'm getting at:
Religious Non-religious
Lucky win win
Unlucky lose lose
Jesus. Seriously?
This entire argument, as I've stated (and others have as well) is EXTREMELY flawed, in that the table is flat-out wrong and incomplete to an infinite degree.
It's not just "religious" vs "nonreligious". It's an infinite set of beliefs vs. the rest of the infinite set of beliefs.
Or what if, as most western religions claim, you have to worship God X in order to get in? What if you worship gods Y or Z? And what if gods Y and Z say the same thing?
Granted, then it's still possible to say "well, there's at least an infinitesimal chance that you're right if you believe in SOMETHING, whereas if you believe in nothing there's NO chance to get in!"
But that's asinine too, because it assumes too many things. Not all religions only let you into some magical afterlife if you believe in them and for no other reason. Not all religions even HAVE an afterlife. Not all religions necessitate that you do anything particular to get into theirs. Not all religions even allow ANYONE into the "good afterlife". So really, no matter what you do, if you're choosing arbitrarily it's a complete fucking toss-up and you might as well just say "well, if I get into some sort of good afterlife, then I do", just go along, and don't let it change your beliefs, because you're just as (infinitesimally) likely to get into some positive afterlife as the next guy who bases his beliefs on some idiotic statistical model.
Personally, rather than changing my entire damn worldview just so I can change my chances of getting into some form of Heaven by... well, absolutely nothing at all, it turns out, I'd rather just live my life and try to hold ideas that I
actually find to likely to be true.
Honestly, now, Pascale's Wager was only ever brought up in history because the "christian vs. nonchristian" dichotomy was held in higher regard. Right now, we know it's more complicated than that because we are exposed to more ideas. The argument has been disproven time and time again and doesn't stand up to proper analysis whatsoever. It's known to be flawed by anyone who isn't just trying to defend it to the death for propaganda's sake.