The human ability for random-sequence generation (RSG) is limited but improves in a competitive game environment with feedback. However, it remains unclear whether RSG during games can improve when explicitly informing people that they must be as random as possible to win the game nor is it known whether any such improvement transfers to outside the game environment. To investigate this, we designed a pre/post intervention paradigm around a rock-paper-scissors game followed by a questionnaire. During the game we manipulated participants’ level of awareness of the computer’s strategy; they were either (a) not informed of the computer’s algorithm or (b) explicitly informed that the computer used patterns in their choice history to beat them, so they must be maximally random to win. Using a novel comparison metric, our results demonstrate that human RSG can reach levels statistically indistinguishable from computer pseudo-random generators in a competitive-game setting. However, our results also suggest that human RSG cannot be further improved by explicitly informing participants that they need to be random to win. In addition, the higher RSG in the game setting does not transfer outside the game environment. Furthermore, we found that the underrepresentation of long repetitions of short patterns explains about a third of the variability in human RSG and discuss what might make up the remaining two thirds of RSG variability. Finally, we discuss our results in the context of the “Network-Modulation Model” and we ponder their potential relation to findings in the neuroscience of volition.