Pascal's Wager fails for the simpler reason that it ignores the possibility that believing in god could send you to hell.
I see a similar problem here. Pascal should consider the possibility that the mugger will use his (Pascal's) silly action as the basis for punishment, in place of the promised reward. Slim probability, potentially very high cost. The fact that this risk has gone unstated doesn't mean it isn't there.
I agree that both problems are worth analysing, even if they're both absurd. Same goes for the Hangman's Paradox, a personal favourite. [0]
I gather that Pascal had never intended Pascal's Wager to be a watertight argument, it was intended more as a plaything for showing how unlikely it was anyone could make a watertight case for the existence of God.
