I think that slots are way better than dice because of their payout structure. Lets say you are hunting 99x in dice, in this hunt you will not get paid if you hit 98x. But in slots things are different and you will get paid for every hit though you are aiming for jackpot.
I know that most of the slots pay like 80-92% of what goes into slots but still if you compare it with dice (specially hit and run method) it is more profitable in long run (although in long run you will eventually loose in both games because of house edge)
I want you to ponder upon this and please tell me how much I am right in this line of reasoning.
I don't think this is a correct method to compare the profitability of both the games. Both Slots and Dice are completely random and purely luck-based games. In luck-based games house edge is the most important factor to be compared, if you compare them, you'll find that Dice is better than Slots. Slot is the easiest way to lose your money if you are not lucky.
Blackjack still no different since you still rely to your luck. You hit when you think you'll lose because the house might just hit the right card to equate more than you have if you stand. If luck is on your side you win.
But what OP says is that you still get rewards even if you didn't hit the jackpot with slot. I'm not a fan of playing Slots though. It feels not random to me.
Blackjack is definitely not a luck-based game, if you are a bit skilled you can clearly reduce your loses even when you are unlucky. Most card games like Blackjack, Poker etc require a certain level of skill to make profits. But in Dice and Slots, there is no skill involved. So Card games and sports bets are always better than luck based games