Have you ever taken insurance and then surrendered?

[21forme]

Today, dealt a 16 v A. First took insurance (big count, no BJ), then surrendered. Don't think I'd do that where they're on the ball, but this place wasn't a problem...

 

[Blue Efficacy]

I really don't see why this would be so unusual. Why wouldn't a typical gambler want the benefit of insurance possibly letting them keep their bet without having to lose 150% of their bet?

 

[shadroch]

The few times I've played games with surrender, I've done it on a regular basis.

 

[creeping panther]

@!

Today, dealt a 16 v A. First took insurance (big count, no BJ), then surrendered. Don't think I'd do that where they're on the ball, but this place wasn't a problem...

I do it often, hate it but do it.

CP

 

[DownUnderWonder]

I don't see it as being a problem. Remember insurance is a side bet after all.

 

[shark]

Problem is that most ploppies don't view it as a side bet. I've gotten comments based on the quality of the hand(s) I choose to insure. If it is a weak hand I insure, typically eyebrows are raised from the other players and some dealers/PBs.

 

[FLASH1296]

Just do it.

 

[21forme]

I was playing heads up at the time, so only odd look I got was from the dealer.

 

[3aces]

When I do it, I bemoan my loss and comment on how stupid I am and ask whether insurance is a bad idea. Get all the usual goofy advice - "only insure a good hand, house would not offer it unless it was to their advantage". I explain that I am trying to learn some of the finer points, but get confused sometimes.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

You've got to do what you've got to do. At least the civilians don't blame you for affecting the game when you do that.

It's true, nobody but AP's views insurance as a sidebet totally separate from blackjack. So insurance is always a counter tell. But at the same time, it can be used for counter cover.