It’s funny that the two examples used to illustrate his play (the 10 2) stories are examples of him making extremely bad reads on his opponent and bad beating them. I can only assume that’s him massaging the narrative a bit to help him win in the future, cause it isn’t great poker playing.
The article says he wore his opponent down little by little -- and then won a big hand. So there's that -- accruing that big lead in the first place. (Which happens in both stories)
And then at that point the logic is different -- Brunson can effectively end the game and win the tournament if he wins the next hand. Even if your odds are 50-50, since you've got more money to gamble with than your opponent, it's probably worth it to take that shot.
Also, in this story he has two pairs. The odds of your opponent having two pairs on any given hand are just 4.7539%. (And the odds of it being higher than a pair of 10s is much lower than 2%). So betting high was the right move -- despite the fact that his opponent, by an incredibly unlikely fluke, seemed to have a better hand with one card left to flip. (Which is sort of meaningless, because the fifth card counts.)
But throughout the article, it also shows Brunson following a long-standing poker principle: playing the man and not the cards. ("Brunson knew that Alto tended to get impatient after losing big.") Even getting your opponent to risk all their chips is a challenge in poker -- but Brunson knew he could make that happen. (And knew exactly how...)
I think the larger point is he won the championship two years in a row. You just don't do that without tremendous skill. But even if that doesn't convince you of poker-playing greatness: it's still a tremendous story -- that he won both championships with essentially the same crappy 10-2 hand.
"To this day, the ten-deuce is known as the 'Doyle Brunson.'"