This is definitely closest to the gambler's fallacy. An example of this fallacy demonstrated in your example would be that the player, having killed 80 monsters without a coin, thinks that the next 20 monsters will have a higher probability of finding a coin with each kill. This is fallacious, as no matter how many monsters the player has killed, even after killing 10,000 with no coin, he will still have a probability of 1/100 or 0.01 or 1% for receiving a coin after each kill.
On the flip side, there is the notion of "quitting while you are ahead," which is also the gambler's fallacy. This example would be that the player thinks that, after getting 2 coins but only killing 100 monsters, thinks they will have a lower probability of receiving a coin in the future and thus should quit playing or do something else since the probability of receiving a coin will be lower for future 100-kills. This is also fallacious. Related, gambler's conceit is where someone thinks they are on a "lucky streak" or that their skills are actually what is causing victory rather than probability, and so will continue gambling and almost inevitably lose all their earnings.
The probability of getting 1 coin per kill is 0.01 as a given that cannot change. However, the more times the player has killed groups of 100 monsters, the closer the resulting empirical probability will support this data. Monte Carlo simulations would be how you can simulate doing thousands of 100-kills in order to get the average probability of interest. Given an infinite number of attempts at killing 100 monsters, the probability of getting 1 coin in 1 kill will be 1%, though you may have instances where 2 coins are received in 100 kills, which makes it appear as though the probability of getting 1 coin in 1 kill is 2%. The best way to look at this and the probability of getting at least one coin in 100 kills is a Poisson distribution.
A Poisson distribution gives the probability of k number of events happening given lambda average number of events happening (assuming independent trials). In this case, lambda = 1 because on average, 1 coin will be given per 100 kills. P(k number of coins dropped) = e^(-lamda)*(lamda^k)/k! The result is P(0 coins dropped in 100 kills) = 37%, P(1 coin dropped) = 37%, P(>1 coin dropped) = 26%. So, P(at least 1 coin dropped)= 63%.
These situations and the fallacy assumes independent trials of a random process. If the process is not random or if the trials are not truly independent, then the situation is made more complex. With something such as 3-pointers made in a basketball game, there are certainly psychological (and physical) factors at play affecting the outcome of any given shot, even though player's shot may have a historical probability. Confidence as a result of a "hot streak" may serve to perpetuate a hot streak or can give someone pressure that causes them to lose focus or otherwise make mistakes. So, we can conclude from the gambler's fallacy that it is not fallacious to pass someone repeatedly the ball who is on a "hot streak." There is some debatable statistical evidence on the subject, with some evidence offering support. See hot hand.
There is also the inverse gambler's fallacy, which is the fallacious conclusion that, upon seeing an unlikely event take place, assumes there were a large number of trials and outcomes that already happened, attempting to explain why the unlikely event was seen.