In chapter 6, Alan Hájek simultaneously addresses the questions of how best to formulate Pascal's Wager using decision theory and whether the argument is valid. Hájek begins with careful scrutiny of Pascal’s text and of Hacking’s influential reading that identifies three versions of the Wager. There are some surprising plot turns: Hájek finds that Hacking misrepresents Pascal’s reasoning in a number of places, and he reaches the radical conclusion that all three versions of Pascal’s argument are invalid. Hájek then turns to a review of twelve distinct reformulations of the Wager, obtained by modifying either the decision matrix or the decision rule. All of these reformulations are formally valid, but Hájek notes ways in which they depart significantly from Pascal’s original reasoning.