"Poker" is a much broader category than "two-player, unlimited stakes, no-limit hold-em."
Particularly, it's usually a multiplayer game at the outset, and has many varieties other than hold 'em (which just happens to be the currently—and this is a fairly recent development—popular form.)
It's not the standard version of the game. If computers were consistently beating the best in the world in blitz chess but not standard tournament rules we wouldn't say that "chess is solved".
I didn't say poker was "solved", I said it had "fallen".
It's true that poker is not completely solved, but neither is chess. It is still not known whether white has a forced win. It is possible that some day this will be known, and if the answer is yes, then a human playing white may be able to learn the strategy and hence beat any machine. But that will be only marginally more interesting than the fact that a human player can force a draw in tic-tac-toe. The difference between "fallen" and "solved" is just not that interesting. Checkers is solved, but no one cares.
I see no reason to believe that the techniques used to beat the best human players in one variant of poker cannot be extended to beat the best human players in any variant of poker, or, for that matter, to any game with randomness and hidden state.
