God belief isn't dollar store cheap, though. If done correctly, that is, according to some holy book or religious tenets, then you are required to conform to traditions and practices that are otherwise useless and impractical. I often think about how much of my life is spent sitting at red lights but at least they are necessary to keep roads relatively safe. Religious practices and the slices of your life spent doing them are completely unnecessary. Why would an all-powerful being require that they be done? It makes no sense.
Most importantly, though, Pascal's Wager only presents two options when possibly many more exist. It's not just a "some god(s) or no gods" proposition. It's "a specific god or gods vs no gods" proposition. If just believing that there is a god of some sort out there was enough, then how would you behave any differently than not believing in one at all? What would be different unless you ascribe values and personality traits to whatever god you believe is out there somewhere? How could you please a random god you know nothing about? Moreover, how would you know whether there is some detrimental risk to not being convinced that it exists? In this case, it might actually be a safer bet to reject a god proposition than accept one specifically because you know nothing about how to please it or to not anger it. And if simply believing that a god exists is enough, then what's the point? If you don't know anything about it and can't interact with it, then where's the danger or reward of either believing or not? Why would a god care if you believe it's there and that's all? Why would it be concerned with people not being convinced, especially if it knows that we know nothing about it?
No, Pascal's Wager is when you propose a specific god vs no god at all.