mick - thanks for taking the time to read the thread and respond.
Never intended to confuse Mick so apologies.
First off - It's good for a punter to be suspicious and through some of your past postings i have gleaned some new lines of questioning , especially the trainers trying to throw us off these big shiny stats

It makes sense , especially the gambling yards.
But i'm afraid i have no answers here Mick , i think your under the impression that i actually use this angle - No mate ,the above was intended as a research post only and has nothing to do with any methodology or criteria i use to select my mainly losing bets

hence i started the post with the "TV / press pundits quote" - it is something i have came across many times , read it in books and heard that "so and so is sending one to Lingfield tonight and it is his only runner" or "Dettori's there for his only ride of the day" especially in the RP comments section and on both racing channels - so in essence a rather basic attempt to determine if it is significant or not. As i stated with the trainers - based on all the data - the average difference in win % was only 0.52 % in favour of a trainer's sole runner against all runners so really for the majority there is nothing in it - but i have found in the past that there is usually something to be gleaned in the extremes. And that is why i posted the top and bottom ends of the table maybe for forum members to discuss further and maybe glean an insight or two. So the above is just a stand alone attempt to prove if there is any worth in a racing myth if you like and drum up some discussion and not in any way an attempt to convince anybody that this is a method or system.
Would i use any of the above solely as a basis for a bet? - Never!
But having seen the data would i maybe look for example at Charles Hill's sole runners on a day differently? - maybe - actually quite a big maybe and hopefully with further input and discussion we could decide if there is any worth in this.
Like yourself Mick i look for "racing reasons" within quite simple data and you have probably seen some of the stuff i track , layoffs , headgear / equipment and trainer moves - the "racing reason" behind that kind of stuff is in the theme of "improvement" - trainers buy new stock to improve their lot and win races , trainers apply equipment to try and improve their stock and win races , trainers rest their stock for future gains down the line. From that i apply the same kind of approach i have applied to this , look at the extremes and take it from there. Strictly as a backer i look more at positives than negatives , and i don't really use negative stats to oppose horses or to go off them , preferring more traditional "form" reasons for that.
BTW I also have done similar research with another old adage / myth - the "Long Distance Traveller" and ill post that up soon in the hope that it drums up some discussion. Once again there are positives and negatives (there has to be!

) in fact there are trainers who are extremely good , within this area but ill say right now - it is not something that i really use in my betting.....but i might (and others might too) through further discussion and ideas try and incorporate it.
Hope this answers you Mick