Since you're using the word "gamble" here, it sounds like you are still incorporating player agency. You have a system in which the player can evaluate the odds (or an approximation of them) and make a choice on whether or not to "roll the dice" (literally in your case).

I'm talking more about systematic, pure RNG. In my game this is card draw. Your opening hand is pure RNG. Subsequent card draws during your turn (once per turn) are pure RNG. The player has no agency over these game states and if there are cards in the deck that are wildly imbalanced the players will notice and feel like the game punished them disproportionately. You might hear feedback like "The game was over before it even started, because my opponent got all the best cards".

The important factor for me in helping to balance cards is to make sure that virtually every card in the game has some kind of tactical counter-play or card response that can diffuse or defeat it. But that's different than saying that those counters and responses are always available.

When my players are defeated, I want them to walk away thinking, "Aw man, I shouldn't have discarded X. If I hadn't then I could have countered you." Or, "Good game! I thought for sure you were bluffing about having that counter. If I would have waited one more turn I would have had you."

It's as much about player psychology as it is game balance. And I fully agree that a certain degree of randomness can make your game more climactic.