Try thinking of it this way: you're in highschool and your stats teacher gives you a homework assignment to flip a coin 200 times. You respect her and don't want to disappoint her, but at the same time the assignment is pointlessly tedious and you want to write down a fake result which will convince her you actually did it.

A slightly imperfect split is more likely to convince your teacher that you did the assignment. Intuitively this should be obvious.

Let's look at the original quote:

> "Remember, if you flip a coin 200 times and it comes heads up exactly 100 times, the chances are the coin is actually unfair. You should expect to see something like 93 or 107 instead".

Inverting the statement makes it read something like this:

You are more likely to not get 100/100 than you are to get exactly 100/100

...which is exactly what I was saying. Nobody is arguing that there is a single value that might be more likely than 100/100. Rather, the argument is that a 100/100 result is suspiciously fair.