sagefr0g said:
i always chose blackjack. basically for the simple reason that the house edge was lowest for blackjack compared to any other game in the house.
Here is the flaw in your reasoning.
The house edge for blackjack is low, but it is not because you win very frequently. It is because you tend to win more when you win. If you were forbidden from doubling or splitting, the house edge on blackjack would be very large - 7% or so. It is because you can put more money down on good hands that your house edge shrinks to 0.5%.
If you put down $1 on a hand of blackjack, you're going to lose that $1 about 49% of the time, and only win money about 43% of the time (the remainder is pushed). So if you lose your coupon whether you win, push, or lose (which is often the case), blackjack only gives you a 43% value. If you get to keep the coupon if you push, you'll have a 0.43/(1-0.06) = 46% value.
Compare that with craps, for which the house edge is larger, but the low house edge is because of a very high winning percentage - the probability of pushing is only 3% on don't pass, so you have a winning percentage of 48% and a losing percentage of 49%. Your coupon now has 48% of its face value if you lose it on a push, and 49% of its value if you keep it on a push.
If you're restricted to even-money bets only (which I believe are the most popular by far), don't pass in craps is the best bet because it has the highest winning percentage. Blackjack presents multiple problems:
(1) If you get a blackjack with an even money coupon, you may only get paid even money on it.
(2) Basic strategy for doubling and splitting change with coupon play (see Grosjean's treatise on coupons and funny chips for details).
(3) Your winning percentage is lower than that of craps.