I'm assuming his impression of Wagner would be decent, if he had any musical talent. As for the wager, it does raise an interesting philosophical hypothesis, with is at least superficially valid.
No. Never did, never will.
It's an infamous logical FALLACY for a reason.
Its a poor argument mainly because one either believes or disbelieves. If they don't believe then how does one pretend for the purpose of possibly going to heaven to which they truly don't believe in, as if the said God wouldn't know their true thoughts and beliefs.
The flaws are glaring; its only worth is showing how NOT to construct an argument.
No, it is a monumental red herring in the debate concerning the existence of God.
This absurd ultimatum is a glaring example of a false dichotomy; you should either believe in god because if you do the rewards will be tremendous, or if you deny god's existence the consequences will be astronomical. Blaise Pascal was obviously referring to the Abrahamic god that Christians worship, but even if god does exist there is no human method to distinguish between which of the thousands of gods that have been proposed is the correct one. Also the candy-ass idea that believing in god solely to avoid hell and eternal damnation is laughable and does not seem as if it is very endearing to your supposedly benevolent creator. If you want to believe in god, so be it; however, base your belief off of genuine acceptance instead of blind fear.
If you're a believer only for an insurance policy wouldn't the omniscient God know this? ..and would he reward your insincere belief?
Pascal's wager can be reversed: God hates groupies, and sends all believers to hell and non-believers to heaven. One should not believe in God, just to be on the safe side.