I was actually assuming 0% of Blackjack players profit longterm. I suppose you could count card counters or cheaters, but happy to concede no one beats the game - it's just fairly low variance and has a pretty tiny house edge.
Fair enough point on the relative stake levels, although pretty sure you can find micro stakes BJ online nowadays too. However I think most gamblers are more likely to have their stake levels near the "unhealthy" side of the spectrum (too high) as you don't get quite the same buzz otherwise. Therefore they are not going to sit playing $1 tournaments off a $200 deposit.
I think you're mistaking this with 2003. The games are much tougher nowadays and a casual player just isn't going to turn a longterm profit - they're going to lose unless they put in effort greater than they can be bothered to do. They're just there to play!
I never said there was an upside, it's just a smaller downside. You will lose playing Blackjack, but your rate of loss will be slower due to a fixed, known tiny house edge. The negative edge playing poker is bigger.
I'm not mistaking this with 2003, and I'm well aware of how easy the games were (The Party Poker Days) after the 'Moneymaker Boom', and that the games will never be that soft again. Even the players who did well in '07 and '08, some of the biggest winners online, have struggled since ('ActionJeff' being one of the biggest names to have disappeared over the years), or they just eventually quit because they couldn't recapture their earlier successes (lost confidence & burn-out).
The bulk of $1.50 S&G's and mico MTT's, are made up of recreational players. 'Regulars', at least solid ones, generally won't be playing those unless they're rebuilding their bankrolls (and they won't stay there for long). I generally do player searches on sites like PokerProLabs or OfficialPokerRankings, and quite a few of the weekend warrior/Mon-Fri evening type players, profit if they're disciplined enough, consistently over the years. A 'few' in this case might not seem like many people, but it's a lot better than the 0% return that all BJ players are getting long-term (no matter their level of skill).
While it's true that recreational players probably play in games and stakes that aren't well proportional to their poker bankroll, I still think the majority of them are still playing $3-$7.50 S&G's, $2.20-$5.50 MTT's, and .02/.04 to .05/.10 cash games. I doubt that there are many recreational players who will deposit $215 on a Sunday, and only buy into the Sunday Millions, using up their entire deposit just to take 1 shot (most recreational players who play in the Sunday Millions or the Sunday Warm-Up, generally get in through micro-level satellites).
I do recall the Mapau Casino (group) using PlayTech software had .10 cent BJ, but even then, it's not like my dollar was stretched out for that long. If you're saying (and I agree) that no one is beating the game long-term, why on Earth would/should they chose BJ over Poker, when at least a percentage of people are 'winning' long-term? I get the argument that the 2% house edge in BJ looks nicer on paper than 10% rake on MTT buy-ins, but the reality is that you're taking a bigger hit going against that 2% edge. Remember, it's not 10% rake vs 2% rake, it's player vs field with 10% rake against player vs system that has a 2% edge over the long-haul. Personally, when I see people saying that the house 'only' has a 2% edge, I quickly think they don't quite understand what 'only' means; people in 'general', not a jab at you Roller_Jamie.
While I certainly wouldn't recommend playing slots, in my experience online, my dollar & gameplay was stretched a lot farther playing slots by comparison to my playing BJ; which I could never understand because the house edge is far greater for slots; meaning greater for the casino. Even when I had more of a 'gamblers' mentality (little care for bankroll management), even while not being good at poker, even while playing a high variance game like NLHE, I could make a $100 deposit last on a poker site longer than I could making +25 deposits at $200 each playing strictly BJ (a game that I knew how to play).
A $200 deposit playing BJ generally equates to minutes up to a few hours of fun (even though I now think it's boring as hell), whereas a $200 deposit playing poker means that I'll have days/weeks/months to look forward to; and I would have said the same thing when I was just a recreational player.
I agree that recreational players in general are playing for fun, and they're probably not looking to invest any time in studying when they're not playing, but they can still be learning as they're playing. It's not like they're purposely forcing themselves to not get better. Some people who're newer to poker, are sharp enough at picking-up the game while limiting (or avoiding) bad habits. I think a great number of the newer players, or even the regulars, play too many tables at once, never corrected their bad habits (plugged their leaks), and still couldn't be bothered to understand something as fundamentally important as positional play.
ABC players, who play tight, even though they're predictable because they only make moves with premium hands, generally play well because they aren't doing too much, they aren't outthinking themselves, they don't get fancy, they don't make stupid bluffs, they're attentive, they don't tilt as much because they don't have entitlement issues (like most regular/PROS do), and while they might not necessarily be playing to win (they 'believe' they're playing for the win but they're not necessarily putting themselves in position to get 1st-3rd place/final table finishes), they're still playing and having fun trying to survive and get into the money. Lower skilled players who play patiently, don't get out of line, play optimal cards, and have that survivors mentality, can be profitable players (I was going to say 'will' here but I need to curtail my writing in absolutes). They just won't be making any serious money, but they're in a MUCH better position than the highly skilled BJ player who's down +$5K at the end of each year.