I am no mathematician so my comment is a gut-feeling. The game is couched in a particular environment that say nothing of , how do I put this, the Might of SB. It assumes that SB somehow gains from revealing itself. But this does not describe fully who should be an SB. I do not know the details of Pascal's parable. It looks more like a probability thing but not a game between an SB and what, (what's P to SB?), P in this game. I am guessing that the relation implied by Pascal between his GOD and human beings was not that of two players, each with a strategic objective, goal set, strategic moves, etc. But it seems to be one of, say, hearing of a Tornado threat with an argument of signs of its hitting your home.Take it that the Tornado does not need your believing what your hear or not. But if you did not heed the news and the Tornado hits, you are in trouble. Well if nothing happens... back to Pascal.
Pascal's paradox? is not, dare I say it, fit to be modelled with game theory. Since I am not a mathematician I have made the reasonable? assumption that GOD, if we could find a better characterisation of HIM, is not in a game with the one who is unfaithful. I wonder if there is a game where one player determines everything and the other submits willy-nilly, no matter how the one who is weaker feels about their own actions. Thinking about all the things a human being cannot change about themselves (race, e.g.), I am naively convinced game theory does not deal with faith question satisfactorily nor does it explain Pascal's parable.