P. Charalambous & J. Clutterbuck
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 80 runners a season, almost all on the flat, winning with 6% of them — a touch below the margin-free market read across five seasons (Fair A/E 0.72). With a claiming rider up the record reads 10% (49 runs).
The record is strongest at Lingfield (AW) (11.4%, n=35), clear of the yard's 5.9% baseline. Runners with a claiming rider up have been a positive signal at 10.2% (n=49, Fair A/E 1.47). Luke Morris rides 26% of the entries and matches the yard's average almost exactly (6.8%, A/E 0.69). The yard also reads well off a 0-7-day break (14.7%, n=34) and at trips under 6f (10.8%, n=74). The record reads poorly on Good going — 0% over 51 runners, 5.9pts below the baseline. The market has consistently overbet the yard over 1m – 1m1f: Fair A/E 0.29 across 65 runners (1.5% strike, −44.00 to a £1 stake) — runners there underperform what the price implies. One Group or Graded win sits in the archive record — the biggest prize the yard has landed: the John Guest Racing Bengough Stakes at Ascot (Oct 2024, £48,204). The stable star of the record: Man On A Mission (GB) — 7 wins from 59 runs for the yard.
Yard patterns
the angles behind the record · vs 5.9% baselineEach tile is the record in that situation vs the 5.9% 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 firstCurrent form
significance-gatedLast 14 days
Small sampleWhen the yard fires
strike by month, 5 seasonsJockey bookings
same window · biggest samples firstCareer highlights
lifetime archive, 2022→Sires in the string
progeny record · win % by ground and tripThe record
latest 50 of 389 · newest firstThe latest 50 of 389 archived runners, newest first. The full record runs from 21 April 2022 to 19 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).
Quick answers
- What is P. Charalambous & J. Clutterbuck's strike rate?
- P. Charalambous & J. Clutterbuck has won 23 of 389 runners since 2022, a strike rate of 5.9% (as at 1 November 2026). Figures are computed from our own results archive.
- Which course does P. Charalambous & J. Clutterbuck do best at?
- Lingfield (AW) by strike rate: 4 wins from 35 runners (11.4%) since 2022. 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 P. Charalambous & J. Clutterbuck?
- Luke Morris, with 103 runners since 2022 — 26% of the total. That pairing has won 7 (6.8%).
- Is P. Charalambous & J. Clutterbuck in form?
- Too few runners in the last 14 days to read — 1 runner, which is not a sample we will draw a conclusion from.
- What is P. Charalambous & J. Clutterbuck's Fair A/E?
- 0.72, from 385 runners with a computed fair probability since 2022. 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.