Isn't using Pascal's wager to support faith kind of broken due to the idea that for any possibility that there's a God who rewards you with a happy life for belief in them, there's an equal possibility that there's an evil God, who punishes you for belief in them?

Pascal's wager also supposes that faith is "free". It doesn't factor in the cost like having to dismiss all modern notions of Biology in certain cases. You have to weigh the chance of eternal damnation against the possibility of wasting your only life (no afterlife) laboring under false pretenses.

I'm all too used to my argument being put in a box and dismissed with a standard argument for that box. But please don't do that, OK?

Hell is nowhere in this chain of argument. God arguably is, but that's in step 2. It's step 3 which may kinda, sorta remind you of Pascal's Wager, but it's only an argument against nihilism, not even for theism.

Yes, conceding step 3 leaves wide open the question of what to believe in instead of nihilism. Even conceding step 2 leaves open the question of "what sort of god are we talking about". But this is precisely the point. That means you can argue these things separately, while still acknowledging your opponent's ultimate concern.

I'm not dismissing anything. Just pointing people to a relevant interesting page. Try not to be too hasty to read arguments into comments where there are none :)