Yes, I think 18 is far too low. There has to be a more efficient method than the one I used, but the problem for, say, 3 consecutive three throws amounts to working out firstly the number of ways this can occur in any number of throws, then multiplying each case by the probability of its occurring and summing these up. The analysis for 3 straight throws in 5, then, gives (S = success, F = failure) the following eight sequences that work:
SSSSS
SSSSF
SSSFS
SFSSS
FSSSS
SSSFF
FSSSF
SSSFF
These can be grouped into three groups with probabilities 0.717^5, 0.717^4*0.283, 0.717^3*0.283^2, and the total probability is about 0.58 or 58%.
Similar work for three consecutive throws give six attempts gives 19/64 possible sequences, with a total probability of 67%, and for four attempts the result is about 47% probability. Also, 0.717^3 ~0.36, so we have a sequence going something like:
3/3 = 37%
3/4 = 47%
3/5 =58%
3/6 = 67%
From this I project that you would need eight or nine free throws to have a 90% chance of a string of (at least) three consecutive throws. The method described above can be applied to any target number of consecutive free throws x, but is clearly very tedious and is surely not the best way to tackle the general problem. However it does mean that it's likely that mibn's "for 9 you need 18" answer is likely to be an underestimate.