Strike Team Odds Seem Inaccurate

What I meant is if I fail two 90% missions in a row, where is the other side of the coin so to speak where I get lucky and hit a steak of success like 15 or 20 in a row without failing?  But I did have way more success in Assassin's Creed when I'd send out my assassins.  

This is turning into a philosophical debate which is fine but not really my intention.  I just wanted to see if you all noticed odd results based on the probably of success percentage.  I understand RNGs but from my perspective, the percentages don't seem accurate based on what I've seen.  Everyone is mentioning extremes which is kind of my point.  I find it hard to believe it's so easy to find so many people that are saying they're winning or losing way more often than what probability of success percentage indicates.  All the other biases can still apply of course and I think it's fair to say it's possible the RNG isn't perfect.

The issue is that the opposite must also be true, so for every player that fails two 90% missions in a row, a player should also succeed 20 in a row. Given that I run two teams and run all bronze/silver and only do very favorable gold missions that means I should not fail for three days in many cases, which is absolutely not true. To make matters worse my success chance is listed as 94% (seems to be a hard cap) so for every failure I should have roughly 19 successes. Again, this is not true or even close to the truth.

Concerning the hard cap, the success chance most definitely has a diminishing return so it is safe to assume that a 100% success rate is simply impossible to attain. This also means that there is always a chance to fail which again suggests there is a minimum failure rate regardless of RNG. All of this points to the fact that the data is being manipulated beyond what the success rate tells us. That alone means it is not just RNG at play here.