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.