Jeff Pearce
Fair A/E compares wins with a margin-stripped market expectation. Favourite-heavy samples — top yards, leading riders — naturally read a few points warm, so 1.05 means "beat the margin-free market read", not "the market underrates this by 5%".
Sent out around 230 runners a season, almost all on the flat, winning with 11% of them — beating the margin-free market read across the lifetime window (Fair A/E 1.10). Horses with headgear back on after a bare run strike at 14% (43 runs).
The record is strongest at Wolverhampton (AW) (14.8%, n=182), clear of the yard's 10.6% baseline. It is weakest at Brighton (3.3% over 30 runners) — the widest gap in the record. A horse having headgear put back on after a bare run has been a positive signal at 14% (n=43, Fair A/E 1.12), but new recruits from other stables on their first run struggle at 5.7% (n=35, Fair A/E 0.58). Runners with a claiming rider up are the standout value angle: 11.6% strikes only just above baseline, but Fair A/E 1.27 and +24.99 to a £1 stake over 267 runners — a record the market has persistently underpriced. Simon Pearce rode 24% of the entries and matches the yard's average almost exactly (10.5%, A/E 1.11) — the partnership beats the margin-free market read. The yard also read well off a 0-7-day break (18.7%, n=75) and off a 8-14-day break (14.5%, n=256). The record read poorly on Good going — 6.2% over 130 runners, 4.4pts below the baseline. 4 Group and Graded wins sit in the archive record — the biggest prize the yard has landed: the totesport.com London Mile Handicap at Kempton (AW) (Sep 2007, £46,245). The stable star of the record was Formidable Guest (GB) — 9 wins from 49 runs for the yard. Seasonally, the yard fired Dec–Jan.
Yard patterns
the angles behind the record · vs 10.6% baselineEach tile is the record in that situation vs the 10.6% baseline — descriptive splits with the sample always shown, for you to weigh. Tiles under 30 runs render muted. Headgear figures use the true-first definition (first gear appearance in the captured career); returns are gear back on after a bare run. Claiming riders are runs where the booked rider carried a weight claim. Group / Graded covers pattern and listed races. The same beliefs, tested across every yard and every GB and Irish race since 2005: Racing myths.
Notable angles
vs their own baselineRecord by conditions
same window as headerRace type
Going
Courses
Class
Market position
Distance
By season
Handicaps
Field size
Rows below n=30 are shown faded — a small sample is a fact, not a trend. Every figure carries its N.
Horses trained
same window as header · most-raced firstWhen the yard fires
strike by month, lifetimeJockey bookings
same window · biggest samples firstCareer highlights
lifetime archive, 2005→Sires in the string
progeny record · win % by ground and tripThe record
latest 50 of 1,721 · newest firstThe latest 50 of 1,721 archived runners, newest first. The full record runs from 4 January 2005 to 12 January 2011.
Drawn from the whole archive (2005 onwards), so it can include runs outside the window the header statistics cover. Non-runners are not listed. A finish shown in letters is a non-completion (F fell · UR unseated · PU pulled up · BD brought down).
Quick answers
- What is Jeff Pearce's strike rate?
- Jeff Pearce has won 99 of 933 runners since 2008, a strike rate of 10.6% (as at 5 November 2026). Figures are computed from our own results archive.
- Which course does Jeff Pearce do best at?
- Wolverhampton (AW) by strike rate: 27 wins from 182 runners (14.8%) since 2008. Read from the 15 courses with the most runners on the same basis, and only those with at least 30 — a small sample cannot top the list, and a rarely-visited course is not in the comparison.
- Who rides most for Jeff Pearce?
- Simon Pearce, with 220 runners since 2008 — 24% of the total. That pairing has won 23 (10.5%).
- What is Jeff Pearce's Fair A/E?
- 1.10, from 928 runners with a computed fair probability since 2008. Fair A/E compares actual wins with a margin-stripped market expectation, so 1.00 is par: above it the wins came at bigger prices than the margin-free market implied, below it they did not.