Michael Jarvis
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 310 runners a season, almost all on the flat, winning with 22% of them — beating the margin-free market read across the lifetime window (Fair A/E 1.18). The edge shows sharpest with horses returning fresh: 25% off breaks of two months or more (231 runs).
The record is strongest at Wolverhampton (AW) (35.4%, n=48), clear of the yard's 21.8% baseline. It is weakest at Newmarket (8.5% over 82 runners) — the widest gap in the record. Horses returning fresh after 61+ days have been a positive signal at 25.1% (n=231, Fair A/E 1.29), but a horse in first-time headgear has been a poor signal at 11.4% (n=44, Fair A/E 0.93). Debutants are the standout value angle: 16.3% strikes only just below baseline, but Fair A/E 1.21 and +10.99 to a £1 stake over 166 runners — a record the market has persistently underpriced. The market has consistently overbet in Group and Graded company the record: 13.9% strike, Fair A/E 0.84 and −47.82 to a £1 stake over 166 runners — those runners underperformed what the price implied. Philip Robinson rode 47% of the entries and matches the yard's average almost exactly (22.7%, A/E 1.21) — the partnership beats the margin-free market read. The yard also read well in Class 6 (35.3%, n=34) and in Class 5 (29.1%, n=330). The record read poorly in Class 1 — 13.9% over 166 runners, 7.9pts below the baseline. 42 Group and Graded wins sit in the archive record — the biggest prize the yard has landed: the Tattersalls Timeform Fillies' 800 at Newmarket (Oct 2008, £433,360). The stable star of the record was Laaheb (GB) — 7 wins from 12 runs for the yard. Seasonally, the yard fired Apr–May.
Yard patterns
the angles behind the record · vs 21.8% baselineEach tile is the record in that situation vs the 21.8% baseline — descriptive splits with the sample always shown, not tips. 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.
Notable angles
vs their own baselineRecord by conditions
same window as headerGoing
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 2,439 · newest firstThe latest 50 of 2,439 archived runners, newest first. The full record runs from 16 February 2005 to 22 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 Michael Jarvis's strike rate?
- Michael Jarvis has won 268 of 1,230 runners since 2008, a strike rate of 21.8% (as at 22 October 2026). Figures are computed from our own results archive.
- Which course does Michael Jarvis do best at?
- Wolverhampton (AW) by strike rate: 17 wins from 48 runners (35.4%) 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 Michael Jarvis?
- Philip Robinson, with 581 runners since 2008 — 47% of the total. That pairing has won 132 (22.7%).
- What is Michael Jarvis's Fair A/E?
- 1.18, from 1,220 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.