Nick Littmoden
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 70 runners a season, winning with 9% of them — level with the margin-free market read across the lifetime window (Fair A/E 0.99).
The record is strongest at Wolverhampton (AW) (14.1%, n=227), clear of the yard's 8.9% baseline. It is weakest at Huntingdon (0% over 30 runners) — the widest gap in the record. A horse having headgear put back on after a bare run has been a poor signal at 2.9% (n=34, Fair A/E 0.48). Luke Morris rides 7% of the entries and sits below the yard's average (4.3% vs 8.9%, A/E 0.43). The yard also reads well in Chase races (22%, n=41). 2 Group and Graded wins sit in the archive record — the biggest prize the yard has landed: the Prix du President de la Republique Handicap) at Auteuil (FR) (Apr 2023, £101,549). The stable star of the record: Lord Theo (GB) — 8 wins from 76 runs for the yard. Seasonally, the yard fires Dec–Mar.
Yard patterns
the angles behind the record · vs 8.9% baselineEach tile is the record in that situation vs the 8.9% 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 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 firstCurrent form
significance-gatedLast 14 days
Small sampleWhen 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 2,606 · newest firstThe latest 50 of 2,606 archived runners, newest first. The full record runs from 3 January 2005 to 27 October 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 26 Oct 2026: fastest on KTB Speed in 1 run (won 0) · to 26 Oct 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 Nick Littmoden's strike rate?
- Nick Littmoden has won 126 of 1,408 runners since 2008, a strike rate of 8.9% (as at 31 October 2026). Figures are computed from our own results archive.
- Which course does Nick Littmoden do best at?
- Wolverhampton (AW) by strike rate: 32 wins from 227 runners (14.1%) 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 Nick Littmoden?
- Luke Morris, with 94 runners since 2008 — 7% of the total. That pairing has won 4 (4.3%).
- Is Nick Littmoden in form?
- Too few runners in the last 14 days to read — 2 runners, which is not a sample we will draw a conclusion from.
- What is Nick Littmoden's Fair A/E?
- 0.99, from 1,396 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.