Well, first, your numbers can't possibly be right. I would place your chances for all jobs at better than 1 in 500. But, I really think you're thinking about this the wrong way. First off, depending on your sub-field, there can be substantial financial concerns — if you use a magnet or other very expensive techniques, I would imagine that there are many R2s and even 2nd tier R1s that might prefer cheaper techniques. Many SLACs (not that you're applying to them, but who knows) won't even consider your application if you use expensive techniques. All this is to say that for a subset of people, lower-tier schools may actually be harder to get jobs at than schools with better funding for research (or schools that require you to get substantial grant fundings).
More generally, though, it seems like you might be asking the wrong question here. I don't think the question is about what your chances are (since we obviously lack the relevant information to really know), but about how you can improve your package for one (one+) more application seasons. After all, job markets aren't lotteries, and the odds are not evenly distributed across all applicants. And, what might be really appealing to one school is not appealing to another, even in the same tier. The numbers just don't tell me much.
I see 9 publications in grad school + 4 years of post-doc. That doesn't seem very high, but assuming you did 5 years of grad school, that works out to 1 pub/year. Not breakneck, but I've seen candidates with that type of publication record (and no pubs in science/nature/PNAS) get offers from Elite R1's. Again, I can't know what the market is like in your subfield (since I don't know what your subfield really is, how neuro-y you are, etc…), but my feeling is that your record sounds very strong on paper, and certainly strong enough to warrant more bites. This is good news, because it means that there are probably some things you can change about your package to make you more appealing. I would sit down with peers and mentors and have them rip your package to shreds to make it better. I'm going to assume that your CV is beautiful, easy to read, and well organized, so I would start with your research statement. If you're not getting bites at research schools, the research statement is probably an issue — have you explained to a general audience WHY the questions you ask matter? HOW your research lines are related? What makes you tick as a thinker? Have you integrated your lines of research from grad school / post-doc into a clear narrative with a clear and explicit path forward? If a grant organization could only see your research statement, would they give you a million dollars? If not, it's not good enough.
I would (and trust me on this…) then move onto the cover letter. I know, weird. All I can say is that while lots of people get job with form cover letters, every interview I had with an Elite R1 (and at other schools, too) mentioned my cover letter. I took it as a place to highlight my best qualifications and to make a bold personal statements about my ideas and research trajectory, and it worked.
All this is to say — it's not really about odds (except that the further you get in a search, the more arbitrary the choices and more "chancey" your outcome). But, if you're publishing 1 paper/year, have grants and good post-docs, and are apply widely and over multiple cycles, I would take the lack of bites as a signal that there are some (hopefully easy) fixes you can do to make your package more compelling.