That was a Friday. He spent the weekend thinking of the prize he was due to collect the following Monday.

But when Mr Yap, 41, a businessman, turned up at the Singapore Pools' headquarters in Paradiz Centre to collect his money, he was told by a staff member that his bet had been cancelled under the established rules.

He was supposed to have placed the bet, under the live betting scheme, after the start of the match.

Mr Yap, who declined to give his full name because he claims he often carries large sums of cash, had placed his bets under the 'Team to Score Last' section.

A Singapore Pools spokesman told The New Paper on Sunday that for live betting schemes such as 'Team to Score Last', bets have to be placed during the match because the odds will change as the game progresses.

Singapore Pools said that when Mr Yap placed the bet at one of its outlets in Turf City at 8am on 29Feb, the staff member there made a mistake and allowed the bet. The match began at 7.30pm that night.

He paid the amount in cash and was issued 21 betting slips.

When the mistake was discovered a minute later, the staff member deleted the bet.

By then, Mr Yap had left the shop.

Singapore Pools said that the incident was a first and that it would investigate the matter.

REFUND, NO WINNINGS

Mr Yap was offered a refund, but he refused it, saying he was entitled to his winnings.

Why did he place a bet under the live betting scheme when this clearly implies the match must have started before bets can be placed? Didn't he know the rules?

While he admitted betting on soccer before, he claimed that it was the first time he played the 'Team to Score Last' option.

He said: 'They (Singapore Pools) accepted my bet and issued me betting slips. They should honour my bet.'

How is it that he was willing to wager so much money? He would only say that he is not a regular punter and that when he bets, he'd rather bet big.

In an e-mail to The New Paper on Sunday, a Singapore Pools spokesman said: 'We explained to Mr Yap that the 'Team to Score Last', which was meant for live betting, was opened prematurely at 8am that day.

'Our staff member removed the bet event at 8.01am as soon the error was discovered.

'As the bet event was abandoned well before the match commenced at 7.30pm, we will, in accordance with our rules, give Mr Yap a full refund.'

The spokesman said all Singapore Pools outlets have been reminded of the conditions for 'Team to Score Last'.

DIFFERENT RULES

Live betting is available only at the Paradiz Centre office and over the phone.

The spokesman added that there was no way for Singapore Pools to inform Mr Yap about the error earlier because punters are not required to provide their contact details.

Mr Yap's winnings were supposed to be 2.65 times the bet amount.

He said: 'After deducting the bet amount, my net winnings were supposed to be $69,300. I find it hard to accept that I can't get it.'

Mr Yap claimed he might take legal action against Singapore Pools.

WEAK CASE

Lawyers say that suing the lottery operator would be tricky if the conditions for placing the bet have been stated.

Lawyer Kirpal Singh of Kirpal & Associates said: 'If the bet has been cancelled, then it doesn't exist any more.'

Another lawyer, Mr PE Ashokan of KhattarWong, said Singapore Pools would have taken steps to protect itself beforehand.

He said: 'The rules and regulations would have been displayed in every outlet to protect Singapore Pools. Normally, bets are placed before a match starts.

'In this case, although it's a rule to the exception, Singapore Pools would have stated the conditions for the bet in its outlets.'

This article was first published in The New Paper on Mar 16, 2008.