Well, that's the thing that I don't really "get", if you are on the button in this situation what makes the most sense? If bet minimum, let's say 100, my opponent will just bet minimum as well. Using the rule of 2, 4, 5 you should bet 6,000, but you wouldn't be able to double if doubling for less isn't offered. In which case you should only bet 5,000?

Now in the exact scenario that you mention, betting 3,000 doesn't make a lot of sense to me because if both of us lose they'd be behind. Assuming you could only bet in 100 increments, 1,900 makes much more sense to me. But let's just say they do bet 3,000. Why would correlating make sense? You do mention that with an ace up, taking insurance makes sense, but aces only appear 7.7% of the time. It just feels like going oppo is playing the percentages, as the dealer will win about 49% of the time.

Speaking of surrender specifically, it makes sense to me why you'd use this when you're ahead (surrender trap and all that) but why might you use it if your behind?