Of course, the real game theoretic outcome has to include the incentives of the rule maker.
This strategy generates controversy, which generates viewers, which generates revenue. But once the novelty has worn off, there's nothing prevention g the rulemakers from instituting a formal rule to replace what was once a cultural norm.
Well I would say that as far as Chu is concerned, any long term consequences his actions may have on the game are likely to be mere externalities to him since these will probably not happen until he's already extracted the value he wanted out of the game.
You could also argue that the additional publicity he's enjoying thanks to his unusual strategy (eg. this article) far outweigh the costs of any such potential negative externality.
This strategy generates controversy, which generates viewers, which generates revenue. But once the novelty has worn off, there's nothing prevention g the rulemakers from instituting a formal rule to replace what was once a cultural norm.