"Triple-One-Hits" Too Often?

I've never noticed anything outstanding in the block shield counter.

What I've noticed is that in all online CCGs, people frequently write questioning the RNG used for the game after any outstanding repeated cases of bad luck. Have you looked into the concept of bias in the perception of probabilities? It's quite fascinating.

EDIT below:

Apologies for sounding patronizing. I've seen this question asked soooooo many times it has become tiresome, specially when you're on the other side of the playing field and people are questioning the systems you create for them.

I always recommend people who see patterns in elements of video games that should be random to consider a few questions:

• Is it difficult to implement an RNG that is essentially indistinguishible from true randomness? (the answer is: no)  
• Is there any benefit at all in siding with one player in a zero sum game? Will either player be incentivized to spend more money if they lose or win from what seems to be luck in the game?
• Is there a drawback to negatively affecting the RNG in a game? Will people feel cheated and want to leave the game if they repeatedly get bad luck?

If you take a close look at the answers to these questions and compare that with the existing research on cognitive bias and how the human brain perceives elements of luck, you'll see that its not worth digging further. People tend to see patterns, specially when faced with bad luck and there is no benefit for companies to deliberately force these patterns, nor is it difficult to avoid them.

Really the question that I ask myself is: why don't developers just transparently normalize luck altogether? that is, nudge the results so that these clumps of seemingly improbable patterns (which are totally normal in real randomness) never happen so players stop questioning the RNGs. But then, I know the answer. They do it in certain things, but for card games, most designers want raw randomness.