Features
At one time one entire block of McAdam Ave. was almost totally Jewish
This story originally appeared in a November 2014 issue of The Jewish Post & News:
1994 McAdam Ave. reunion (names inside story)By GERRY POSNER (This story first appeared in November 2014.)
Once upon a time when life was simpler and gentler, there was a street in the north end of Winnipeg which was like all other streets in the city except in one significant way. Everyone, but for one family, living on McAdam east of Main Street was Jewish.
From a 1994 reunion of former McAdam Ave. residents:
Front row – Linda (Shuckett) Waldman, Gail (Caplan) Bender, Brenda Mindell Odwak, Martin Sodomsky, Belva (Cham) Wilder, Carol (Frank) Woodward, Sharon (Mondell) Wolchuck,
Kenny Sodomsky, Behind Brenda her brother Earl Mindell, Barry Caplan, Terry (Yates) Erlichman, Penny (Mondell) Ganetsky
Ed. note: As we noted in the November 12, 2014 issue in which this story – & picture, first appeared, there are far more faces in the photo than names in the caption.
One might speculate how this might happened and no doubt there are various reasons that might be given, but the reality was that in a period between 1950 to 1970 ( give or take a few years), there was no trouble rounding up a Minyan on McAdam.
Who were these people, what did they do for a living, were they friendly with one another, what became of the kids who grew up then and what memories of that time do they have? Tough questions with uncertain answers in part.
What we can say for sure about this group is that they got along well with one another. There was a feeling of community and they had a spirit of forgiveness for the transgressions of someone else’s kid trespassing on their property or making noises at late hours or for that matter in the early morning hours on a Sunday reserved for sleep. ( just how much this quality of forgiveness has been carried out to the next generation will be evident if there are not too many complaints about how this article left out a name or had the wrong address or mixed up crucial facts).
The names are not as difficult to list without going to a Henderson’s Directory as you might think. All that was needed was Paul Nusgart, Brenda Odwak, Jack Rusen, Cheryl Singer, Linda Waldman, Adeena Lungen and Sharon Wolchock, all graduates of McAdam Avenue. Just to hear the names once again brings back a storehouse of memories. Here is a list of the addresses and the families who inhabited them.
North side of McAdam at Main Street:
195 Ben and Clara Lungen, children Paul and Adeena who owned and operated Lungen’s Meat Market, a butcher shop right at the same address
191 a duplex- main floor Minnie Waldhorn and brother Max Waldhorn. They also had their sister Fanny Mandell living next door at 187. On the second floor was the well known lawyer ID Rusen
187 Manasha and Fanny Mandell, Merle and Ruthy
185 Bill and Minnie Mindell, Earl and Brenda (how odd that a Mandell and a Mindell would live next door to one another)
181 Max and Idy Nusgart, Paul and Ruth Carol, later succeeded by the Greenberg family, as in Lawrence and Lois with sons Jeff and Alan
177 Phil and Adele Sheps, David and Arthur, followed by Charlie and Molly Rusen, Jack and David ( the first family connection as Charlie and ID were brothers)
175 Max and Annette Caplan, a sister to Nathan Stall also on the block across the street, Barry, Sandra, and Gail,
171 Bob, Molly and Hilda Schulz the owners of the Deluxe Theatre Coffee Shop in the Deluxe Theatre and the only non-Jews on the street (Ed. note: In a letter we received following publication of Gerry’s article, writer Allan Margulius (who lived at 170 McAdam) noted that the house at 170 McAdam later belonged to the Brick family: Fred & Cynthia, and children Marsha, Ira, Robbie, & Lisa.)
169 Bernard and Ruth Mondell, Sharon, Penny and Errol (McAdam Avenue, like no other, offers the triple M hockey line, as in Mandell, Mindell and Mondell – a hockey announcer’s worst nightmare)
165 Kaplan – daughters Annette and Bert and Sonny and Dave succeeded by The Frank family, Carol and Minnie and Ernest Green and their five children Coleman, Cheryl, Chuck, David and Ricky
163 A Mrs. Rose Billinkoff, as she was known to the kids of that time, grandmother to David Billinkoff and with her a daughter, Ada
161 Jimmy and Rae Gobuty, daughter Elaine and son Michael followed by Ike and Fanny Glesby and 4 daughters, Carol, Marilyn, Donna and Barbara and even later, the Gillman family
155 The Levin Family who moved later to 146 McAdam and after the Levin’s, Lionel and Minnie Katz, Jerrold and Bernard
151 The Stern family( Ruth and Bill) and children Maxine, Neal, Gary and Shayla who later moved across the street (there seemed to a definite inclination to remain on McAdam since a number of residents moved from one side to the other)
147 Max and Molly Byers, Bloomie and later Benny and Fanny Pressman, Irwin and Eddie
145 Dave and Bert Shuckett, Linda and Richard
141 Evelyn Blankstein and her mother Mrs. Lena Blankstein
South Side:
194 Another duplex with the Collarman family as in parents Mendel and Rachel and son Howard in one part and in the other, Myer and Rose Nackimson, Eddie and Janice followed by Sid Green
190 The Adilmans as in Jack, Joe and Sybil later followed by the Portigals, Evelyn, Sheila and Chassie. Also at this home were Annette and Danny Butler with their kids Mark and Nadine
186 Albert and Sylvia Israels, Martin and Richard
184 Duplex: Bill Malchy family to include daughters Naneve and Melissa and Mr. Jacob Shuckett Sr. followed by Cantor Orland Verall
180 Dave and Sara Hyman, Jackie and Gary
176 Art and Gloria Sodomsky, Ken and Martin
174 Bill and Sukie Pitch, Harvin and Marsha and later the Stewart family and then Manya Margulius, Marty and sister, Caroline and The Frank family (Ed. note: In another letter we received following publication of Gerry’s article, writer Sharon Niznick Glass noted that the Frank family preceded the Margulius family. Sharon wrote that Carol Frank had lived in the house before the Marguliuses and that she boarded with them for two years while she went to university. As Sharon wrote: “When I told people where I was living, they always said: ‘Oh, you’re living in Carole Frank’s house.” Sharon added that she didn’t know who Carol Frank was until 50 years later until she was introduced to Carol Woodward in Palm Springs – who proceeded to tell Sharon that her maiden name was Frank.)
170 Joe and Mickey Margulius, Ilene, Teddy and Allan (yet another family connection- see next door)
168 Zeke and Bert Greenberg, Reta and Arnold
166 Jack and Molly Secter, Lloyd, Norman and Lily Ann
162 Sid and Frances Katz, Paul and Hart later followed by Dave and Dorothy Yates, Terri
160 Nathan and Gertie Stall, Shelley, Morton, Phyllis and Richard
158 Jack and Geila Sheps, Cheryl, Sam, Maureen and Michael
156 Lewis and Lucy Cohen, Ernie and Larry
152 Leon and Clara Cham, Noreen, Belva and Ricki followed by the Ruth and Bill Stern Family
148 Sam and Claire Posner, Ken and Ricki succeeded by Dr. And Mrs. Cham and children Bonnie, David and Susan (a second Cham for McAdam-perhaps it was the rhyme on the name that attracted them there)
146 Harry and Myrna Levin, Michael, Julie, Esther Ruth, Jonathan and Daniel
Back in the 1950’s, on a given summer night, you could hear the voice of Molly Secter bellowing out “ Norman, where are you” all the way from the Levin’s at the eastern end to Main Street at the western end. Or perhaps you might see Charlie Rusen in front of his home practising his golf stroke.
This we know for sure. That time and period has ended and with its demise we lost real neighbourliness and the certainty of being able to look to someone on the street to help out no matter the problem. McAdam had all of those qualities and more. Just ask any of the descendants.
Features
Hair straightening at Sets on Corydon
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
