The quoted example makes him pause game one at a high win, switch to game type two to achieve a 'tenfold win' token and then combine this with the paused game.
These are arbitrary rules put in place just for the simulated card games in the first place.
And of course for him it hugely increases the probability to achieve this scenario intended to be very rare.
The point is that insofar as the game replicates poker one can basically use that as a way to identify the difference between a "bug" and a "odd game rule."
The only thing that these played-against-the-house games take from real poker is similar hand rankings.
Yes you remove the human element and change some betting rules but at its core video poker is a simulation of physical poker. The parent doesn't have much of a point other than being overly hyperbolic to discount the reality that there is certainly an argument that this was a bug and hack since the exploit sits clearly outside the realm of the game of poker.
I'm not sure how strong this argument is but it's clearly different than just saying it's like a speedrun. Just because the medium is virtual doesn't mean you aren't entering into a implicit contract to play by the rules of poker.