Even though people can try to use bidding strategies, it is not a game of chance.
Keep this terrible blog far, far away, please.
Even in the case where you are willing to put a lot of money into a "full price" auction, the ability that someone else has to put one dollar + auction price in and defeat your 2 * auction price dollars in bidding + auction price makes it unlikely you will win without "investing" radically more than the value of the product. (Especially since they are trying to create a bidding war between 2 or more people each of which are unaware of the "sunk cost fallacy", or at least not able to act on it.)
I'm not sure what metric you would prefer, but if you feel it's dumb and not gambling, I would invite you to try it. Me? I'll be over here, not trying it. I can work the math. But feel free to let us know how it goes.
If you'd like an easier metric, just go to the site and find a currently active item. Simulate yourself hitting the "bid" button, and keep track of how often you do it, and whether you win the item. Until you sit there and watch the counter in real time (as I did on a couple of items), you can't feel how this site works.
(And since Swoopo may end up here, I'll repeat what I said on my blog: I am completely uninterested in hearing from you, Swoopo.)
[edit: what is the point of participating in an auction for commodity goods other than to pay less than retail? I assume that people who take part in this site do it in the hope of coming out ahead, not to win an auction at any cost even if it means paying more than the item is worth. I don't see how users of this site can confuse "winning an auction" with winning in economic terms]
You don't get to redefine words to support your personal opinion, and still have a valid argument.
[edit: what makes a game of chance is the point that you win or lose money, not whether you win or lose the auction. I'm not confused, I'm just not getting distracted by the semantics of "winning the auction" vs. the real objective you are after]
Do I lose if I purchase it in bulk from costco instead of pooling the resources of my friends, starting a company, and buying directly from a distributor?
Is the soda machine a "game of chance"?
The answer to all of these questions is "no". None of them are games of chance.
This would be a game of chance if it was "pay $10 and you might win, but we won't tell you until the end" instead of "pay $10 and if somebody pays $11 we will tell you so that, if you chose to, you can bay $12. This cycle will continue until the item reaches a point that nobody is willing to spend more for the item"
This is not a game of chance because you get to CHOSE if you are going to win, and they TELL you if you will before the conclusion of the auction (or game, in your description).
You ARE simply confused about this, because it isn't possible for a rationally thinking person to make the argument that you are and mean it.
In a real case, if there are two or more people as determined as you, it is impossible to predict who will get the item. All will be spending money in advance without knowing who of them will get it. That's why it's a gamble.
As in...if you bid $10, then $12, then $14, are you actually spending $36 + bidding fees?
Because if you're only paying for the item once you win it, that is NOT a gamble.
Yes, there are fees involved. This is customary for EVERY auction. (I don't know about ebay, but visit a real-world auction sometime).
It is an english language problem...If you spend $90 on a $50 item, you lose because you are losing money.
We are talking about lose in the "win/lose" usage of the word.
You're not wrong, you're just confused.
The fact that one will usually lose money with that site does not change the fact that the winner is the person willing to spend the most money.
"I would point out that they sometimes run 'special' auctions where the 'auction' price is free, and all you pay is the bid price. In that case there is 0 ability to 'win'; it's straight-up gambling."
If there is no cost of entry then it isn't a gamble, because a gamble requires you to risk money. Quit inventing definitions to support your defeated argument.
"I'm not sure what metric you would prefer, but if you feel it's dumb and not gambling, I would invite you to try it. Me? I'll be over here, not trying it. I can work the math. But feel free to let us know how it goes."
That is a red herring. Correctly pointing out the fact that it is not a gamble, does not mean that I think it is a wise use of my money. Do not use such intellectually dishonest tactics to try to change the subject from your failed argument to one that I did not address.
You are conflating the inability to control the price with the inability to control the outcome.
You define the outcome as winning the auction. That's dishonest. The outcome is whether you'll spend more or less than buying the item outright at retail price, which is what you are competing against.
Are you a politician or something? That is an incredibly dishonest phrase to use and you should be downvoted for that alone. (Though I note with some pleasure it hasn't seemed to have worked.)
I'm pretty comfortable with this definition of gambling. You are not in control. Part of the scam is that you think you are. But you are not. Your comprehension is being successfully hacked.
Try it. Since you apparently won't understand until you do, try it. Then get back to me. See just how much control you have.
No. He said that they only charge you for the bids, and not for the item, in these special auctions. So if you bid twice and win, you pay only 2 x $0.15, whereas normally you would pay 2 x $0.15 + whatever your highest bid was (I hadn't heard about these special auctions before, it seems like people would just keep bidding forever.)