Tom Lacey
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 190 runners a season, almost all over hurdles and fences, winning with 17% of them — beating the margin-free market read across five seasons (Fair A/E 1.07). New recruits from other yards win at 28% first time out (39 runs).
The record is strongest at Market Rasen (29.4%, n=34), clear of the yard's 17.2% baseline. It is weakest at Aintree (6.3% over 32 runners) — the widest gap in the record. New recruits from other stables on their first run win at 28.2% (n=39, Fair A/E 1.55), but debutants struggle at 6% (n=67, Fair A/E 0.40). Horses returning fresh after 61+ days are the standout value angle: 19% strikes only just above baseline, but Fair A/E 1.24 and +34.71 to a £1 stake over 253 runners — a record the market has persistently underpriced. Stan Sheppard rides 67% of the entries and matches the yard's average almost exactly (18.1%, A/E 1.09) — the partnership beats the margin-free market read. The yard also reads well off a 8-14-day break (27.3%, n=44). The record reads poorly in Flat races — 6.1% over 33 runners, 11.1pts below the baseline. 14 Group and Graded wins sit in the archive record — the biggest prize the yard has landed: the Betfair Hurdle at Newbury (Feb 2022, £87,219). The stable star of the record: Flashing Glance (GB) — 8 wins from 40 runs for the yard. Seasonally, the yard fires Feb–May.
Yard patterns
the angles behind the record · vs 17.2% baselineEach tile is the record in that situation vs the 17.2% 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.
Jumping record
completion over obstacles · same window as headerHorses 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, 2013→Sires in the string
progeny record · win % by ground and tripThe record
latest 50 of 2,083 · newest firstThe latest 50 of 2,083 archived runners, newest first. The full record runs from 27 February 2013 to 17 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 Tom Lacey's strike rate?
- Tom Lacey has won 165 of 959 runners since 2022, a strike rate of 17.2% (as at 21 October 2026). Figures are computed from our own results archive.
- Which course does Tom Lacey do best at?
- Market Rasen by strike rate: 10 wins from 34 runners (29.4%) 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 Tom Lacey?
- Stan Sheppard, with 641 runners since 2022 — 67% of the total. That pairing has won 116 (18.1%).
- Is Tom Lacey in form?
- Too few runners in the last 14 days to read — 12 runners, which is not a sample we will draw a conclusion from.
- What is Tom Lacey's Fair A/E?
- 1.07, from 958 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.