William Haggas
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 720 runners a season, almost all on the flat, winning with 22% of them — beating the margin-free market read across five seasons (Fair A/E 1.05). The edge shows sharpest with horses returning fresh: 26% off breaks of two months or more (614 runs). The yard is quiet just now — 8 winners in the last fortnight, below its own baseline.
The record is strongest at Pontefract (42.5%, n=40), Ripon (40.8%, n=49) and Ayr (36.7%, n=30) — all clear of the yard's 21.6% baseline. It is weakest at Newmarket (13.1% over 221 runners) — the widest gap in the record. Horses returning fresh after 61+ days have been a positive signal at 26.2% (n=614, Fair A/E 1.14), but debutants struggle at 13.4% (n=477, Fair A/E 0.96). Right now the yard is in a quiet spell: 8 from 44 runners in the last 14 days (18.2%, 3.4pts below the 21.6% baseline). Tom Marquand rides 41% of the entries and matches the yard's average almost exactly (21.1%, A/E 1.03) — the market has that partnership priced right. The yard also reads well off a 61-180-day break (30.5%, n=325). 334 Group and Graded wins sit in the archive record — the biggest prize the yard has landed: the Royal Bahrain Irish Champion Stakes at Leopardstown (Sep 2024, £712,500). The stable star of the record: Hamish (GB) — 15 wins from 29 runs for the yard.
Yard patterns
the angles behind the record · vs 21.6% baselineEach tile is the record in that situation vs the 21.6% 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 firstCurrent form
significance-gatedLast 14 days
Quiet spellWhen the yard fires
strike by month, 5 seasonsJockey 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 12,171 · newest firstThe latest 50 of 12,171 archived runners, newest first. The full record runs from 7 January 2005 to 23 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 William Haggas's strike rate?
- William Haggas has won 774 of 3,578 runners since 2022, a strike rate of 21.6% (as at 24 October 2026). Figures are computed from our own results archive.
- Which course does William Haggas do best at?
- Newcastle (AW) by strike rate: 46 wins from 159 runners (28.9%) 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 William Haggas?
- Tom Marquand, with 1,457 runners since 2022 — 41% of the total. That pairing has won 307 (21.1%).
- Is William Haggas in form?
- In the last 14 days: 44 runners, 8 winners, a strike rate of 18.2%. That is below the baseline of 21.6% since 2022.
- What is William Haggas's Fair A/E?
- 1.05, from 3,553 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.