is there a more mathematically sound game? is there really any difference in the long run? Whats the real deal between the two and is one of them inferior to the other overall?
...I'm not a pro, but the stdev of returns will be lower for limit and at the end of the day they are both neg expectancy (assuming a casino rake).
but thats assuming no player has an edge. i would guess thats probably not true. but thats a whole other topic.
...as a whole, the game is neg exp...says nothing about an individual player's exp. No player has an edge over the house (rake).
There are poker pros in both limit and no-limit. Entirely different strategies employed when playing to win. I wouldn't say whether one is better than the other. Biggest game in the world was played with limit holdem (Beal vs Corporation). There are those who are much better in limit than in NL ie Harman, those who are better than in NL than limit ie Ungar, those who are great in both ie Ivey. Like trading, many ways in poker to play the game to win. As in trading, you should be familiar with all styles to be well rounded. Lots of poker players cite boredom as a motivation to play a different style of poker.
No limit...hands down. I've been in limit games where 1 or 2 players stay in EVERY hand. Every once is while they catch an outlier. You can have the best hand with the flop, and lose to shit like pocket 3-9. They don't have the risk of being forced all in. Play both and you will see what I mean. Btw the best way to learn is a small stakes no limit (like a 1-2, with $200 max buy in). Just saw the post above mine. Just to be clear Im talking about the kind of games at a Vegas casino. Non pro.