Therefore, it will be harder for the little guy to get representation in court.
Yes, but this is certainly no worse off than if he had gotten a lawyer and still lost the case anyways. Presumably a lawyer will be able to predict if you had a good chance of winning or not, and if he won't represent you if he doesn't think you can win, then at least you're not out the money that you would have spent on the lawyer in the first place where you'd only ending up probably losing the case. Remember, the point of loser-pays is to discourage frivolous lawsuits, and if you don't objectively have a good chance of winning based solely on the merits of your position, then by very defnition, that is a frivolous case.
Now if you had, say, an 80% chance of winning, as you say, then the loan that your lawyer takes out on his own insurance is a risk, but it's only a 20% risk, so he factors that into whether he wants to take the case in the first place. If the lawyer loses despite believing he would win, his insurance rates go up... so he's got incentive to not take cases that he doesn't think he can win, but he doesn't get paid dick all if he decides he's going to refuse absolutely any case that's not a slam dunk just because he's risk averse.