A meaningless endeavor
Poker played perfectly without the human element of bluffing and reading players becomes a pure game of chance.
If a human player plays mathematically perfectly, of course he can beat a computer player being randomly dealt slightly weaker hands during THAT game.
For infinite games, the computer would eventually win because humans make mistakes. Or it would be perfectly 50/50 IF the human player never makes a mistake
I think your analysis is simplistic. The human can make a machine-learning computer think the human is a “bluffer” by repeatedly losing hands with small stakes. Then the human sinks his teeth in when he has a good hand. This is very complex and I would hate to call it simply a game of chance.
But the point of an AI poker playing program is precisely to include bluffing and reading players (on the basis solely of their play pattern) not just a perfect calculation of probabilities. And yes, that too can be mathematically modeled so that an algorithm can make good decisions on when to bluff and judge the likelihood that the opponent is bluffing — a lot of game theory deals with situations that are exactly like the chance-less aspect of poker.
One could even equip a computer with a computer vision system and adaptive algorithms that read the players facial expressions and gestures, but since the computer has no tells outside of any found in its play pattern, that would seem to be an unfair advantage to the machine (like the perfect rock-paper-scissors playing machine has).