There is a very accessible "numberphile" video which I think is closely related to this, about playing the odds on predicting elements of a nominally-random coin-flip sequence using the expected run length. [this video]
Accessible video on predicting coin-flip sequences
I would argue that the problem with frequentist statistics is that it aligns with humans' flawed intuition of how randomness works. People are inherently obsessed with finding patterns to support their hypotheses. The problem is that what we perceive as random and extremely unlikely events are in fact much more probable than what we estimate from using Gaussian methods. And the frequentist approach helps to create this distortion by ignoring black swans. Here's a great video demonstrating how people tend to misunderstand randomness: [this video]
Oh, I remember good old fallout 1-2 when you have 42% hit chance but still miss 7 times in a row. There is also a good Numberphile video on what we think random really is (it is not) [this video]
This may indirectly answer your question: [this video] TLDW: We don't pick numbers at random. At all. We're so bad at it that you can make money off this fact.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
4 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.