I guess I really mean mathematically what is the difference? Is LHE easier to "learn" than NLHE? Thanks.

I made this post a while back on the transition from LHE to NL. Perhaps in can help answer some of your questions.

Very different games. Limit hold'em is more mathematical. Less bluffing, and less financial damage can be done. NL is more exhilarating.

Some would disagree with NL being more exhilarating. I personally find it boring.

has about 13 more differences than do apples and oranges

NL is no "less" mathematical than limit....there are just tons of other things to consider in NL in addition to the math that you don't have to think about in LHE.

As far as less financial damage, that's kind of vague. I think that for most players, the variance in NL ring is dwarfed by the massive variance limit players (especially six max players) experience.

lol this.

Aye, I never understood the reasoning some people give that LHE is a "safer" game. Value in LHE is so thin, that one little leak you may not even realize you have will be the difference between overall profit or loss in a game and slowly suck you dry.
There is almost zero room for error in LHE where you're fighting for maybe 2bb/100 if you're good.

This might be a level, but at any rate since it is a common belief and this is a beginners forum I think someone should respond.

It is a common misconception that limit poker has less bluffing. While this is true of certain limit games, it is not true in general. Your bluffs in limit are less likely to fold out another hand because donks see it as just one more bet (though you probably shouldn't be bluffing calling station type donks anyway) and good players see that they are being offered good pot odds to call you. However, the limit structure and better pot odds apply to your bluff as well, so it doesn't have to succeed nearly as often to show a profit. Because of this, it is sometimes ends up being the case that you should bluff more in limit games, particularly against tight and predictable players.

How's this for summing up these two very different games? Limit is primarily a science. No Limit is primarily an art.

+1

i started off playing mainly LHE, and I found it helped with pot control, which is pretty key in NL
that is all.

I would say that LHE is easier to get competent at for a couple of reasons. The math in LHE is slightly easier with regards to the simple stuff like counting the size of the pot, figuring pot odds, although the real math behind the scenes regarding ranges and complex theory is similarly complex. LHE is also more information saturated cause there's way more showdowns, so beginners get a feel for what hands are strong, where they can valuebet, where they have a good bluffing opportunity etc faster.

And that's pretty much the crux of the matter. At a high level, LHE is no less complex nor no less of an "art" than NL. When a reg faces a reg there's level after level of consideration within every calldown. Does he have it this time, how strong is his range here, can I make a very thin river fold when he 3barrels, etc etc.

That being said, the gamespace for NL is bigger cause there's simply more options. However nobody has come even close to mastering either game so I'd say they're equally hard to get really really good at.

limit vs no limit, the difference mathematically

limit poker = old people + bad smells + knife fights over $24 pots

no limit = sick all-in moves + hot girlfriends + 10k per day ballin

the choice is yours

A little bit, but NL is still very much a science, and there is still a lot of artistry/creativity in FL.

(I barely play any NL) But it seems like there's a lot of levelling in NL, where it's like "he knows that I now that he knows"...where FL is like paper rock scissors a lot of the time. I try and use a different line everytime I'm in a similar position with the same opponent; like switching the patterns in your paper, rock scissor selection. Players tilt hard and lose track of where you're at. I guess that's kind of levelling too..