G'day Hermes.
Why 9 starts? you ask. Well I originally went for 10 starts, then it occurred to me that it didn't make sense, eg I'd be including a horse who'd won 9 out of 10 but excluding one who'd won 9 out of 9. So, opted for 9. Also, lots of horses start out their careers very well and place 100 percent over a smaller number of starts, so 9 as a minimum was a good cleaner-outer for a super-cautious place method

Why 18 days? Simple, its twice 9! :smile: I'm a bit of an angler sometimes for fluid patterns in my little systems eg 9 starters, 90 percent, 9 starts, 18 days - all based in the digit 9. Helps me remember the rules of different systems too

Also the majority of horses running probably meet the 21 day rule so I made it a little tighter at 18

Research? No, I just think up numbers, cross my fingers, and throw it away if it doesn't work or if it looks like it's already had its moment in the sun. I like things to appear simple, not too complex, but still based somehow in a bit of reason. This little system was intended to be low volume, but it's probably too low on volume. You'd lose interest waiting

I like your Hi Striking Improvers idea, a really good combo. Not entirely sure about the 32 days - I lean towards lesser intervals only because I think it's more likely a horse will be race-fit. I'd be interested to see how it goes though

PS: in the battle between me and the TAB, the TAB's ahead by a few lengths in a very long race. I'm happy to acknowledge I'm on the wrong side of the profit line - it gives me way more scope to improve! :smile:

PPS: I would only play the "super-cautious" when it threw up a TAB No 5, 6, 7 or 8, but that's just me!

__________________
Bet for Fun
with 5*6*7*8*