Suggesting that Jago's style is simply not my cup of tea is being charitable: there is such a thing as bad writing. Some even enjoy bad writing, and I suppose that I can't begrudge them. It's tougher to pin down bad writing than it is bad poker play, because we don't have objective measures like EV. Having said that, phrases like "in the current postmodern political environment" (three adjectives per noun is two-and-a-half too many), and "appear to be inaccessible to the secular eye of statistical analysis" are pretty solid indicators.

Again, I'm open to the theory that Jago is offering us a witty parody of pedants (to borrow the OP's term) and academics, but a writer's forum might be a more appropriate venue. That, and I am staunchly of the opinion that a poker article ought to contain at least a modicum of poker theory, which this article doesn't. Lorinda provides fine examples every week of how to mix humour and poker content.