There’s a prevailing tendency among players who get to a certain stage in their strategic development, particularly those who spend a lot of time discussing poker hands with other players who play similar games to themselves, to refer to certain plays as ‘standard’. I’d like to present an argument as to why many players would do themselves a favour by eliminating the word ‘standard’ from their vocabulary.
It ignores the reality of poker decision-making
One of the key realities of making any decision in poker is that in a no-limit game, we almost always have a huge variety of options open to us. In the case of deep-stacked play, our options are almost infinite, once we factor in different variations in bet sizing. In any given spot, therefore, we’re always looking to take whichever option has the highest EV – both in terms of the immediate decision we’re making, and in terms of our overall EV in the hand.
What that means is that when we label certain plays as ‘standard’, we actually eschew any evaluation of the profitability of the play – note that ‘standard’ doesn’t actually constitute a value judgment, it’s merely an assessment that this play is what we would usually make in this spot. Instead of considering a specific play to be ‘standard’, if we truly consider it to be the best play in a certain spot, we should use a term such as ‘optimal’, ‘maximally exploitative’, or even ‘game theory optimal’ if we’re trying to adhere to GTO models of gameplay. Making a play simply because it’s the play that we – or other players, for that matter – would usually make in any given situation is liable to lead to a series of compounding errors in our thought processes.
It restricts your thought processes
These compounding errors are such that they are often going to manifest themselves more in the long-term than the short-term. Making ‘standard’ plays is, over time, going to encourage us to evaluate our own play less regularly, and to be more reluctant to question our own decisions. If our ‘standard’ plays are reinforced by the opinions of those around us, we fall into a pattern of never deviating from a certain strategy.
It is in exactly this fashion that MTT play at low stakes has become very much robotic in nature among regulars. A huge and ever-growing number of players are increasingly aware of what is ‘standard’ in any given spot, and as these players make friends in poker and discuss hands with other players, those ‘standard’ plays become ever-more prevalent, and those players who are not sufficiently motivated to develop their game become ever more convinced that their ‘standard’ players are far more profitable than they really are.
Instead of basing your assumptions about your decisions on what might be considered ‘standard’ in a given spot, test out your own perceptions by taking the time to do the math. If you’re making a bluff, calculate how often your opponent needs to fold in order for it to work, and figure out which parts of his range he actually is folding. If you’re evaluating a value bet, figure out how often you get called by worse. Language like ‘standard’ is supposed to be a synonym for ‘most profitable play’, but you can’t know if it’s applicable if you don’t put it to the test.
It encourages ‘autopilot’
This is probably one of the biggest dangers. Many players who are more concerned with making the ‘standard’ play than anything else are going to be the type to play many tables online, probably more than they should. If you’re playing 16 tables or more and making the ‘standard’ play in the vast majority of spots, you’re almost certainly missing out on a ton of EV that could be gained by playing certain hands in non-standard ways, and you’re probably playing on autopilot a good percentage of the time
To snap yourself out of this habit, consider dropping your number of tables by 25% or even 50% for a few sessions. Focus on identifying spots to take non-standard lines. Check-raise bluff more flops, donkbet more turns, 3bet bluff more, or whatever else you believe is more profitable based on your reads. Don’t think about what’s ‘standard’ – the guys at the very top of the game aren’t playing ‘standard’ poker, so unless you’re severely lacking in ambition, you shouldn’t either.
The game changes too fast
Another reason not to play ‘standard’ is simply because the definition of what it actually is, is changing so rapidly. Three or four years ago it would have been considered ‘standard’ to do a lot of 3-bet, 4-bet, 5-bet and even 6-bet bluffing, to the point where several high-profile players made deep runs in major live tournaments after winning huge all-in pots with hands like 8-4 suited and T-4 offsuit. This led to an incredibly high-variance environment in online (and live) MTTs, which resulted in an adjustment by many players. 3-bet wars went from being ‘standard’ to being considered extremely spewy, within the space of a year or two.
Fast forward to today, and one thing that’s now being considered extremely ‘standard’ is to defend the big blind with a very wide range of hands versus a minraise, especially from the button. However, a year ago, players were really only just beginning to make this adjustment, and many who called in the big blind with hands like K-3 suited or J-8 offsuit were derided as being ‘fishy’ or being ‘calling stations’. The pace of MTTs changes so fast, and any assessment of what is ‘standard’ in any spot is merely an assessment of how we believe we should be exploiting other players, so as the other players’ tendencies change en masse, the definition of ‘standard’ changes too.
You can’t always trust other players!
Finally, it’s worth remembering that if you hear other players referring to things as ‘standard’, you have no real way of knowing that their doing so doesn’t constitute a big leak in their game. Even with a player you may believe to be better than you at poker, there’s no guarantee that what he or she considers to be ‘standard’ isn’t actually the exact opposite. Not to mention, each player’s individual playing style and table image dictates to a large extent the profitability of each play they make, so what may be ‘standard’ for a very loose-aggressive player might be significantly unprofitable for a tighter player.
In summary, therefore, I recommend you think twice before your next use of the word ‘standard’. You don’t have to completely reorganise your thought processes, but it might be useful to use a different phrase instead, so that you can really force yourself to think about the profitability of the plays you make, as opposed to simply continuing to make whichever play you would usually make in each spot.