It was a lot easier to just code.
It often is, particularly for an experienced programmer.
Is there any kind of standard of writing it?
Even though most pseudo-code that is found "out there" seems to follow a pattern, I am not aware of a standard (that doesn't mean there isn't one.)
Is it worth the effort?
In most cases, an experienced programmer can write "pseudo-code" using _real_ code (IOW, it's not really pseudo-code) but, when something is complicated enough that going directly for "close to working" real code proves difficult then writing pseudo-code is definitely worth it.
What I consider pseudo-code is an outline of the steps necessary to accomplish a task. All steps are broken down (further outlined/indented) until I can effortlessly "see" the code required to implement each task/subtask (it may still be a fair amount of code but, as long as there are no tasks/subtasks I cannot see in code then, I'm done.)
I always outline the high level structure of the program in order to group functional pieces. The program source files are made to be parallel to the outline. So far, I've never seen anyone else do that but, I've tested the method on other programmers (they weren't Pascal programmers) and have gotten very positive feedback about the programs that were structured that way.
Note: In the great majority of cases, I only do that for "real" programs. IOW, most programs don't get this "luxurious" structure.
HTH.