Define "average gambler"?
For a non-AP basic strategy player, 0.47% HE games can be found at $10 per hand, and 0.26% HE games can be found for $25 at most of the MGM properties, if the Wizard of Vegas blackjack survey is correct.
Of course, things are better in midweek ceteris paribus, but the point still stands.
It is unfortunate that some places keep tightening up conditions. Although from a casino's perspective, I can see why.
Lets assume a casino can offer a stingy game or a liberal rules game.
The problem is that most of the people that truly, strongly care for a liberal rules game are informed players, i.e. either basic strategy players or advantage players. This means, essentially, liberal rules won't attract the kind of players casinos like (i.e. dumb drunk fratboy jerks that don't know how to gamble correctly and just want to piss money away and scream "IM IN VEGAS! WOOO!!!!"). Instead, it will attract AP's and basic strategists.
So, from a casino's perspective, good rules promote the casino to the least profitable kind of clients.
Now, I won't claim this is true for each individual client. I for one am happy to flat-bet and play basic strategy only at a casino that offers better games/lower table mins than the competition, simply because I am old fashioned and believe a casino like that deserves to be rewarded. I also do not play BJ for money, I play it for fun, and over the long run (and after factoring in comps) BS BJ is very cheap fun. However, many people are NOT like this in their dealings with casinos.
I'm an economist. I could pretend that most customers cared about house edges and behaved rationally. But the simple fact that people actually play at Harrah's Vegas properties when there are MGM properties next door with better games at similar table limits proves this fallacious.
Most people go into a casino with very little information and a lot of pessimism. They don't even contemplate the possibility of getting value for their money.
This strange fatalism is one of the primary factors that allows casinos to get away with what they do. Someone raises house edges, the average consumer says "who cares, I was screwed from the start anyway."
So, either a casino's games extract more money from the pessimistic customer, OR the casino's games extract significantly less from the informed customer AND less from the pessimistic ones.
From the casino's stand point, its a no-brainer.
The only real possible solution is a smarter consumer base that truly cares for a good game and will be more than happy to allow said good game to be profitable for the house.
I don't think card counters are to blame for this. Card counters take at most a small amount of money and the price of CSMs is far too high relative to the amount counters actually take on the kinds of tables CSMs are used on (low limit tables).
The short answer is that the actual demand for good games, even the knowledge of what constitutes a good game, is much lower than the demand for "any game at all."
That said, I don't think all is lost. If the general demand for better games increases, and advantage play is kept to a minimum (and preferably kept to small tables) I think that the resultant market segment would be quite a boon to a casino in terms of player loyalty. And loyal players mean other businesses in a casino (restaurants etc) benefit.