Kim Bailey & Mat Nicholls
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%".
Sends out around 20 runners a season, almost all over hurdles and fences, winning with 16% of them — level with the margin-free market read across the lifetime window (Fair A/E 0.97). With a claiming rider up the record reads 18% (34 runs).
New recruits from other stables on their first run struggle at 11.3% (n=53, Fair A/E 0.76). Tom Bellamy rides 50% of the entries and edges the yard's average (18.3% vs 15.5%, A/E 1.07) — the partnership beats the margin-free market read. The yard also reads well over 2m1f – 2m4f (20.8%, n=96). The record reads poorly in Chase races — 11.1% over 108 runners, 4.4pts below the baseline. One Group or Graded win sits in the archive record — the biggest prize the yard has landed: the Ryanair Mares' Novices' Hurdle at Cheltenham (Mar 2026, £59,084). Seasonally, the yard fires Oct–Nov.
Yard patterns
the angles behind the record · vs 15.5% baselineEach tile is the record in that situation vs the 15.5% 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.
Jumping record
completion over obstacles · same window as headerHorses trained
same window as header · most-raced firstCurrent form
significance-gatedLast 14 days
SteadyWhen the yard fires
strike by month, lifetimeJockey bookings
same window · biggest samples firstCareer highlights
lifetime archive, 2025→Sires in the string
progeny record · win % by ground and tripThe record
latest 50 of 348 · newest firstThe latest 50 of 348 archived runners, newest first. The full record runs from 1 January 2025 to 14 November 2026.
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).
KTB’s figures
the forward record · since 5 Oct 2026KTB’s figures on this yard’s runners since 7 Oct 2026: the KTB Selection in 8 runs (won 1) · top-rated on KTB Rating in 7 runs (won 4) · fastest on KTB Speed in 9 runs (won 3) · to 13 Nov 2026.
Each pick was a KTB figure’s choice before the off — the published KTB Selection, the top-rated horse on KTB Rating, the fastest on KTB Speed — settled against the result the next morning and never worked out again; “did not run” is counted apart. GB and Irish races only. A record of weeks so far: read it as a count, not a verdict.
Quick answers
- What is Kim Bailey & Mat Nicholls's strike rate?
- Kim Bailey & Mat Nicholls has won 54 of 348 runners since 2008, a strike rate of 15.5% (as at 14 November 2026). Figures are computed from our own results archive.
- Who rides most for Kim Bailey & Mat Nicholls?
- Tom Bellamy, with 175 runners since 2008 — 50% of the total. That pairing has won 32 (18.3%).
- Is Kim Bailey & Mat Nicholls in form?
- In the last 14 days: 17 runners, 3 winners, a strike rate of 17.6%. That is in line with the baseline of 15.5% since 2008.
- What is Kim Bailey & Mat Nicholls's Fair A/E?
- 0.97, from 348 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.