Features
“Braunsteins on the broom” revisited
By GERRY POSNER Step back in time to 1958. It’s February and the Manitoba Curing Championships are starting in Winnipeg for the right to play in the McDonald Brier. Who should be competing but two Jewish boys from the south end of Winnipeg, Terry and Ron Braunstein? Terry was all of 18 while Ron was only 17. Also on the team were Ray Turnbull and Jack Van Hellemond.
The team competing for the Manitoba championship was skipped by Marno Frederickson. Although few expected the youngsters to have gotten this far, there they were in the final and, ultimately, they prevailed. As Manitoba champs they were entitled to compete in Victoria, BC in March of that year in the McDonald Brier.
Now, just getting to participate in the Manitoba playdowns was by itself a bit of good fortune. First, It was only because Terry came home from school in Texas where he was on a track scholarship in Houston that allowed him even to be around, available, and ready to play. Events in Texas had soured him on the University of Houston and that was exacerbated by his asking a black athlete, a running star, for some running tips. The coaches disapproved of that interaction, told Terry so warned him not to do it again. That – plus other factors led Terry to abandon the track programme.
So, Terry packed up, came home to Winnipeg and was out of school for that year as a result. But he had time to curl and the Maple Leaf rink as well as the Granite Club were inviting. It did not hurt that the uncle of the Braunstein boys was Eph Portigal, a mover and shaker at the Maple Leaf Club. In fact, Terry has always made clear, as did Ron, that their uncle Eph was instrumental in teaching the boys some curling strategy, a significant part of every curling game.
To be clear, the boys had curled some before as they grew up for a chunk of their early years in Binscarth, Manitoba where their father, Dr. David Braunstein was a physician.The boys, as they were then, had (and always have had) what might be called some serious athletic genes. Anyone who can remember Dr. Dave will recall that, among his many abilities in sports, he was a fastball star.
That the athletic gene was prominent in the Braunsteins became evident to me long ago. I recall the day when I first came across the Braunstein brothers and was in awe of what they could do athletically. It was about 1955 and the Braunstein family had moved to Winnipeg. They were living temporarily with the Portigals on Wellington Crescent – near my home on Cordova Street. Up until that time, I fancied myself as a bit of an athlete. Then I met Ron and Terry Braunstein. I saw them playing baseball on Wellington Crescent so easily and smoothly as if they were born with a glove in utero. Right then and there, at age 12, I realized, just how lousy I really was. I have always commented that, of the people I knew personally, the Braunsteins were the best athletes I had ever seen to that point. Of course, in truth, the range of my relationships at that time was slender, so they had few to compete with on my radar screen.
Now, the story of even getting to compete for the Manitoba Curling Championships was more complicated as the team had their lead drop out at the last minute. The rest of the team needed a replacement and had about 24 hours to submit a new name or they would not be allowed to enter. Terry remembered playing against a young kid earlier who had impressed him, but didn’t know how to reach him. “Him” was Jack Van Hellemond, not yet 16. Terry thought that Jack curled at the Belgian Club so he went there that night and luckily found Jack, invited him to play on his team. Jack agreed, but Terry still had to get consent from Jack’s parents and the principal at his school. All of that happened in less than 24 hours.
In any event, the boys did get in, with Ray Turnbull as second, Ron as third and Terry as skip. Not for a second did any of them think they would win the Manitoba Curling Championship event. In the end though, they were victorious at the Winnipeg Arena. I was there and that is a memory etched in my mind.
Off to Victoria in March of 1958 they went and again, nobody thought they had a real chance of winning the Brier. Yet, they played so well that at the end of the week, their team ended in a tie with one of the legends of the game, Alberta’s Matt Baldwin. That forced a sudden death championship, winner take all. I recall sitting close to my radio following every shot as the game progressed. I was crestfallen when they lost in a very tight match. But, as a sports writer then for the Kelvin High School Et Cetera newspaper, as it was then called, I had the chance to write a column for the paper which had the headline “ Braunsteins on the Broom.” It was my first real writing experience that led to the publication of an article about the trip to the Brier for the Braunstein rink. Terry had graduated from Kelvin while Ron was still a student there. I thank Ron and Terry for the part they played, even if was inadvertent, in my budding writing career. This article just revisits that time and place.
The entry of the young Braunsteins into what was then the main event in the world of curling in 1958 caused a major change in the rules of the Canadian Curling Association. That a team with two 18-year-olds, as in Terry and Ray, a 17-year-old in Ron, and the 16-year-old Jack, could compete with adult men was too much for the veterans of the game, so a separate junior competition was created, which exists to this day. Thank the Braunsteins for that rule change.
And yet, that defeat in 1958 did not deter the Braunstein brothers at all as they continued to compete for many more years, ultimately winning Manitoba again in 1965 and going once more to the Brier, this time in Saskatoon. They had an almost unblemished record and won the Canadian championship with a team consisting of Terry as skip, the very well known Don Duguid as third, Ron at second and Ray Turnbull as lead. That was a big day for the boys, the Granite Curling Club and indeed Jews all over the Province of Manitoba who shared the moment vicariously with the Braunsteins. Unfortunately, the team lost in the World Championship in Scotland to a USA team skipped by Bud Somerville. That Ron had to bow out of the event owing to his medial school obligations might have been the factor that caused that loss. We will never know. What we can suggest however, is the fact that the USA win jump started the game in the USA, eventually createing an impetus to get Curling recognized officially as a sport in the 1998 Winter Olympics. Thank the Braunsteins (even in defeat) for that contribution.
The Braunsteins also changed the game slightly when they adopted a more finesse style rather than the hitting game so prevalent until that time. Maybe that change allowed the team to be so dominant. Whatever the reason, what is certain is that when Terry Braunstein won the Canadian Curling Championship in 1965 he was then the youngest skip to win it at age 25, also the first Jewish skip to win. My best guess is that brother Ron Braunstein was the first Jew to win as a second. Prove me wrong.
Even after 1965, Terry continued to be a major player in Manitoba for many years in the curling community. He had to play without Ron, as Ron had continued his medical career and ended up, after a stint in L.A., moving to Vancouver. Terry participated in 14 Manitoba Provincial Championships. He won three car bonspiels and several cash bonspiels, as well as the Grand Aggregate for most victories in the Provincial play downs in 1969, 1971 and 1977. And there were other honours bestowed upon him throughout his carer, including an induction into the Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame, an honour given later to Ron in 2013. Even as a senior Terry Braunstein excelled, competing in several Provincial Championships. In 1994 and 1995 his rink won the Manitoba Seniors’ Championionship. He even participated in the Master’s competition in 2006.
Now, curling was far from the only sport the brothers starred in, as baseball was at least as great a passion for them – and they played at a high level. They loved baseball as they were raised on it by their father. Moreover, both Ron and Terry became very good golfers ( though Ron was quite clear that he was never in Terry’s league). Of course, during all this time, both brothers had careers in which they were involved for a long time. Ron was a prominent psychiatrist in Vancouver, working in a Vancouver hospital for most of his career in the outpatient child and adolescent department. During his career he was significantly committed to the training of young psychiatrists. Given that there is so much thinking in the world of curling, I suggest that it is not such a long stretch from curling to psychiatry. That suggestion would need input from Ron and others who have had two kinds of careers. Save that thought for another article.
Ron only recently retired after over 50 years of medical practice. He and his first wife, the lated Sue Harris, had three children, all of whom live in the Vancouver area. And to nobody’s surprise, the kids are seriously athletic. The eldest, Jon Braunstein, was, and is still a serious runner, as in marathons. Daughter Amy played competitive soccer in British Columbia. Son Dave, the youngest, competes regularly in Ultima. Some genes never change.
As for Terry, he was the founder and head honcho for Danli Promotions, a specialty advertising firm in Winnipeg and beyond. Danli, of course was named for son Danny and daughter Lisa, the children of Terry and his wife, the former Andrea Greenberg. Danny ultimately joined him in the business and is still active in the promotional industry to this day. My son Ari tells me that Danny is a star on the Squash court.
The Braunsteins have achieved much in sport, particularly curling. But if you talked to both of the brothers, you would know little of their accomplishments, as they remain very humble about what they did. That too is a Braunstein gene. They may be quiet about it. I am not.
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.
