"Standard" Needs To Be Tossed

Ha, no title caps, finally! I'm learning.

I've been reading many posts (NL mostly) that talk about,

"Standard play from (X) position, because player (X) knows what that means," etc.

As we improve, and move up, "standard" needs to be thrown in the garbage.
If I know that you know that this standard raise means (X), I'm going to reverse my standard, go 3rd level, and mix-it-up.

Standard is a bad word, where I learned to play.

I think we need to be really careful in falling into this robotic, standard line of play.

Ok... hammer-away. I know I'm in the minority here!

But most often the "standard" play is the most lucrative and correct strategy.

Yay he knows how to turn the caps off!!!

Seriously though, by saying standard, it is not meant you have to do this and that every single time. As you improve your game, you can go outside of standard and form your own style. Standard plays are a starting point, and are no doubt profitable through all stages of the game. Non standard plays also can make a lot of money, however if you do not know what you're doing, you will go broke by making these plays

Standard is usually used against a relative unknown when we're deciding what to do. Now I don't know where you're getting this from, but sort of like how there are standard plays from a position, there can be a standard at a level, based on the average player there. For example at the limits most of us play at it's standard to fold QQ to a 4-bet. But I was watching a high-stakes 6max video where he mentioned it was standard to stack QQ there. All standard means is the move we make at those limits and that game situation without villain reads. If you're at a table full of monkeys who will push all-in and 100% of the time and can't even read their cards, stacking 88 in a 9-way all-in is "standard", although you'd be crazy in a game with good opponents to do this. What is standard depends on the situation, so of course it's fine to use the word standard because it's already adjusted to the situation.

Oh also standard is usually the most profitable move, whereas a non-standard move may be needed to balance your range. It may be unprofitable in the present but imperative to make sure your hands aren't face up against good thinking opponents.

Monoxide said:

But most often the "standard" play is the most lucrative and correct strategy.

Click to expand...

How do we know?

Maybe standard today won't be standard tomorrow!

We should keep looking to evolve this word we call... STANDARD.

Standard, IMO



I think one thing to note is that you can be changing things up by varying the hands that you make a "standard" raise with, or the positions you make it from - even if we're talking about a "standard" 3BB open-raise before the flop, there's still a lot of non-standard variables associated with it.

Though I do agree that we don't want to make our pays easy to read.

You have to pick your spots on when to mix things up. As you gain experience and wisdom, you have a better feel for the table and better reads on players. Knowing your opposition throws standards out the window, especially poor players. They don't know crap about standards.

Predictable is the bad word, not necessarily standard.

Dayne G. said:

How do we know?

Maybe standard today won't be standard tomorrow!

We should keep looking to evolve this word we call... STANDARD.

Click to expand...

Numbers dont lie

Monoxide said:

Numbers dont lie

Click to expand...

I disagree. You can make numbers look like anything you want them to look like.

Ted Forrest's "standard" is much different than Harrington's "standard." Both great players, w/ gr8 numbers, but... two different standards.

Gus's standard for calling an All-In is different than most.

The reason for this thread is that I see so many of the same pieces of advice ("because it's standard," being the answer). Obviously, not ALL, but a lot.

"Going against the grain" once and awhile, can only help grow the game in the long-run.

What you are talking about is higher-level thinking. You beat a game by thinking one-level higher than your opponents, and for most of that "standard" means the level you need to beat the lower limits we play at.

KyleJRM said:

What you are talking about is higher-level thinking. You beat a game by thinking one-level higher than your opponents, and for most of that "standard" means the level you need to beat the lower limits we play at.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I'm not advocating thinking 4th level when you're playing against 1st level... that would be a waste, and a losing proposition.

Dayne G. said:

I agree with you. I'm not advocating thinking 4th level when you're playing against 1st level... that would be a waste, and a losing proposition.

Click to expand...

Asbolutely. The failure to adapt is probably what causes the peter principle being talked about in that other thread. I imagine the highest echelons are constantly developing new levels of thinking.

In game theory, what we really care about is the unexploitable strategy. Which means a strategy that even if your opponent knows the strategy you use, he cannot profit from this knowledge.

Typically, the unexploitable strategy will not be "bet" or "don't bet", but rather bet a certain percentage of the time. What people call the "standard" play is the play the unexploitable strategy recommends to use most of the time.

Against stupid players, you can deviate from the unexploitable strategy and that increases your profits. But clever players will notice that you deviated and exploit it to their profit. Against good players, you must get closer and closer to an unexploitable optimum. Against a game theory expert, you must essentially quit playing because you will both play the same unexploitable strategy and lose money to the rake.

I think the word we are using `standard` is what we would normally call `TAG`

Playing the player and notes are more important than anything. No point in trying to push a fish out of a pot with a big bet - it then become more reason for them to call, the bigger the pot.

BelgoSuisse said:

In game theory, what we really care about is the unexploitable strategy. Which means a strategy that even if your opponent knows the strategy you use, he cannot profit from this knowledge.

Typically, the unexploitable strategy will not be "bet" or "don't bet", but rather bet a certain percentage of the time. What people call the "standard" play is the play the unexploitable strategy recommends to use most of the time.

Against stupid players, you can deviate from the unexploitable strategy and that increases your profits. But clever players will notice that you deviated and exploit it to their profit. Against good players, you must get closer and closer to an unexploitable optimum. Against a game theory expert, you must essentially quit playing because you will both play the same unexploitable strategy and lose money to the rake.

Click to expand...

I likie...alotie!

standard works great IRL for me. its the online were standard gets my ass whooped

I think we're arguing semantics here, really. As has been pointed out, standard isn't the same as predictable. Sure, varying your betting pattern is desirable, but just because you make a 5x raise instead of a "standard" 3 bet doesn't mean you're ''throwung standard in the trash". Certain plays are always +ev; how you make them is not the material point. Inducing opponents into mistakes is the game theory, and variety is a major component in the process.