I don't think it is fair to relate GRIP to a gambling instrument. There is protection in GRIP, it simply is not going to correlate as closely to an individual farms losses as will the other policies.

For example, say you have GRIP and you yield exactly the county average. The year is a sever drought, widespread and covers the entire region. Since the county yield will be very low, there will be a GRIP payment, protecting you from some financial loss. You didn't have to have a higher than county average to benefit.

My take on GRIP is it is SOME income protection and does reduce a persons risk somewhat, but not nearly as much as a revenue policy. The loss will not be nearly as closely correlated to any specific individual farm.........and that is pretty much what the policy intentions are. 

What I like about the concept of GRIP is there is less overhead (why agents don't like to sell it because they are part of the overhead) and less chance for cheating or corruption. What I don't like about it is it does not protect me nearly as well for my individual losses.

I farm in two counties. In Cherokee county Kansas I would never consider it. We have maybe 10-20% of our land in Cherokee in creek bottom subject to localized flooding. Since it is not a major river it is not high risk classified so no higher premiums. Last year Cherokee county in general had a great corn year and I'm pretty sure there would be no grip payment. Yet we had early heavy rains that flooded our creek areas two or three times. I had big claims on the creek bottoms and good corn on the upland. I had a good indemnity check and with grip I would have nothing. That is why I would never consider it in Cherokee County.

In Crawford I have no creek bottom to speak of. The ground is dispersed around the county that I would imagine my yields should tend to trend with the County fairly well. I considered GRIP for Crawford. I like the idea of the less bookwork, less overhead, no audits, better payback potential overall.  In the end I decided against GRIP (even though there was a BIG GRIP wheat payment this year) because I felt there was more safety in the RA with HPO, even though in the long run the balance of payment vs premium paid might end up favoring GRIP. Going back to the original reason of buying crop insurance, to reduce risk, I felt the RA offered more risk protection for my operation, albeit maybe at a slightly higher long term cost.

John