Insurance vs. Surrender

[Diogenes]

On the few occasions when I insure a hand, only to have to later surrender it, eyebrows are raised. I'm thinking it might be prudent to only chose 1 or the other. Thus, as a rule of thumb, I don't insure hands 12-14, and take my chances since I figure the lost ev for hitting them is minimized. (I never surrender 17, since I've never seen anyone else do it.) I'm a CVData newbie, and can't yet sim this, and thus allow for for varying counts to determine whether to only insure or surrender. Besides, it might overload my mental resources

Am I too paranoid about both insuring and then surrendering the same hand and thus sacrificing significant EV?

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Unless you're playing a very sweaty game
indeed ... you just make the correct play(s)

[Stealth]

Besides, it might overload my mental resources

As ZMF said do the correct play(s). If the above statement is true, then you are likely not ready for prime time.

Insurance is the single largest EV value of all the indexes, the ability to surrender only adds to the value. Your hand composition has nothing to do with the insurance decision but has a role in the surrender play. If you don't trust the math, the only other justification for possibly making a varying play as an outlier from the "rules" has to do with heat and it should be very,very rare.

[Meistro123]

Yes you are being too paranoid. In general you should not abstain from making the correct plays, because usually the people in the casino can't tell a good play from a bad play anyway.

[BoSox]

I'm thinking it might be prudent to only chose 1 or the other. Thus, as a rule of thumb, I don't insure hands 12-14, and take my chances since I figure the lost ev for hitting them is minimized.

You are not thinking straight. Insurance is a completely separate bet, the most important and valuable deviation in the group, and your hand totals should not be the deciding factor. Neither should paranoia. You have the TC including all exposed cards and then you make your decision.

Am I too paranoid about both insuring and then surrendering the same hand and thus sacrificing significant EV?

Just the opposite surrender when used correctly, saves you money not sacrifices it.

[Diogenes]

Yes you are being too paranoid. In general you should not abstain from making the correct plays, because usually the people in the casino can't tell a good play from a bad play anyway.

As ZMF said do the correct play(s). If the above statement is true, then you are likely not ready for prime time.

Insurance is the single largest EV value of all the indexes, the ability to surrender only adds to the value. Your hand composition has nothing to do with the insurance decision but has a role in the surrender play. If you don't trust the math, the only other justification for possibly making a varying play as an outlier from the "rules" has to do with heat and it should be very,very rare.

I'm fully aware that insurance and surrender are independent bets. I was concerned, though, whether it was practicable to do both with same hand, taking heat into consideration (I also never spit tens.) Thus, I was considering a simplified rule to only insure OR surrender different hands. I didn't want to actually us index values, since I felt it would overly tax mental resources and increase errors (That's why I stopped sidecounting aces under Revere's old regime.)

But that's all mute, since the consensus seems to be that heat considerations are virtually nil for insuring/surrendering the same hand. Thanks for the responses.

[AndretheGiant]

(I never surrender 17, since I've never seen anyone else do it.

Surrendering 17 is basic strategy vs Ace in a H17 game.Just do it.

[DSchles]

I'm fully aware that insurance and surrender are independent bets. I was concerned, though, whether it was practicable to do both with same hand, taking heat into consideration (I also never spit tens.) Thus, I was considering a simplified rule to only insure OR surrender different hands. I didn't want to actually us index values, since I felt it would overly tax mental resources and increase errors (That's why I stopped sidecounting aces under Revere's old regime.)

But that's all mute, since the consensus seems to be that heat considerations are virtually nil for insuring/surrendering the same hand. Thanks for the responses.

Moot.

Don

[RCJH]

I'm fully aware that insurance and surrender are independent bets. I was concerned, though, whether it was practicable to do both with same hand, taking heat into consideration.

In my experience, it's actually the opposite, ESPECIALLY if you have a crap hand. You insure, then if the dealer doesn't have it, you sigh with disappointment and surrender.

[Freightman]

I'm fully aware that insurance and surrender are independent bets. I was concerned, though, whether it was practicable to do both with same hand, taking heat into consideration (I also never spit tens.) Thus, I was considering a simplified rule to only insure OR surrender different hands. I didn't want to actually us index values, since I felt it would overly tax mental resources and increase errors (That's why I stopped sidecounting aces under Revere's old regime.)

But that's all mute, since the consensus seems to be that heat considerations are virtually nil for insuring/surrendering the same hand. Thanks for the responses.

Late surrender ace is something that I don't get to play as much as I would like. Also, and has been stated, insurance, a very valuable index is simply a side bet. If you lose the side bet, as long as you were playing to index, then who cares - you've lost the probable value of 1/2 your main bet.

Now, you have the option of surrender. Surrender is a very simple math proposition. Used properly, it will increase your win rate by up to 1/3.

So, to review - you've lost 50% of the value of your main bet to insurance. Now, you've lost another 50% of the value of your main bet to surrender, ergo, you've lost the value of 100% of your main bet.

Your gain? Not withstanding the meaning of terms - Without surrender, you may well have lost the hand, which equates to 150% of the value if your main bet. Therefore, your gain is the difference between 150% loss and 100% loss, or 50% of the value if main bets.

Interestingly enough, where I have played this, lost insurance and surrender, I've had dealers, critters and ploppies basically all remark, that I was a pro - unwanted comments.

Caveat to placate Don - problem simplified, no need to get into the math if INsurance and surrender.

[Diogenes]

So back to my original query, Freightman. Despite the pro comments elicited, do you still insure and surrender the same hand?

[Freightman]

So back to my original query, Freightman. Despite the pro comments elicited, do you still insure and surrender the same hand?

Yup. Have done so several times when that option was available.

[Diogenes]

Moot.

Don

Don S. has feet of clay, lol. He didn't find my other egregious misspelling(s), just moot instead of mute. Unfortunately, I've never been able to SPIT tens-- I can only SPLIT tens.

Other possible misspellings in the OP are left as an exercise for the reader.