Features
Memories of Folklorama from a former Miss Judaea (1972): Marla Guberman
By MARLA BERCHARD (née GUBERMAN)
In August 1972, I was three months shy of my eighteenth birthday when I was selected by a panel to be the female representative of Folklorama’s Jewish Pavilion, Shalom Square. Folklorama was still in its infancy, just a few years since its inception, and my official title was “Miss Judaea.” It was a time I will always cherish.
At age 32, a dynamic lady by the name of Gail Stapon co-founded Folklorama. Gail was the “den mother” to all the Folklorama representatives, coordinator of our events, and our etiquette coach. She passed away in 2015, and a tribute to her interesting life is in the Winnipeg Free Press Passages section. Of personal interest, her husband Norm, who just passed this summer, a.k.a. “Stormin’ Norman”, at one time, played for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. Here are a few of the highlights of my recollections:
As ”Miss Judaea,” I entered a pageant competition, with the winner being crowned “Miss Folklorama.” While not really my thing – and even though I did not win the title, I was one of the top three runners up! I’m guessing that was a little bit of an ego boost!
Each pavilion had its own mayor, and our mayor was a lovely lady, by the name of Freda Fineman. Freda and I, along with each of the other girls and their mayor,s had a “coming out” at Winnipeg’s City Hall, where we were introduced by the then-Mayor, Steven Juba. That was the first official kickoff to the events!
A parade followed, which began at Winnipeg International Airport. Each girl was assigned to a fancy convertible, and as we sat on the back of the folded down roofs, wearing our pavilion costumes, we smiled and waved to the spectators lining the streets who came out to support us, while the parade proceeded all the way down Portage Avenue. I think I mastered the art of “the wave” after that procession!
Later that evening, the girls had a formal introduction on a stage outside the Centennial Concert Hall. We each had our own “walk through” where we were asked to introduce ourselves and say a greeting in our country’s language. In consultation with my late Uncle, Zion Bendel, z”l, who at one time was Principal of the Rosh Pina Hebrew School – and my first Hebrew school teacher, we composed my greeting, which I committed to memory. When my turn came to walk across the stage and recite, I was so nervous I completely forgot what I had memorized, and all I could stammer was “Shalom!” It was an embarrassing moment!
The horse races at Assiniboia Downs were next. We were allowed to invite a plus one. Since I wasn’t seeing anyone special at that time, my date was my brother, Brian Guberman. Now, that is a whole other story, sadly, as Brian went missing in 1974, never to be seen again. But he was a charming date, nevertheless, and admiring eyes were upon him at the racetrack. I think we placed and won a small bet that evening! I’m sure there are many Winnipeggers who may fondly remember Brian for his many performances, including playing “Perchik” from “Fiddler on the Roof” at Rainbow Stage, the Hollow Mug and more. I have made a website about him and am still searching for him after all these years, looking for any clues regarding his disappearance.
The pageant included the obligatory swimsuit competition, under the guise of a pool party at the Elmwood waterfront property of one of the judges: Bill someone, a local politician, whose last name I do not recall. Most girls dared not get wet, especially their hair, lest it spoil their appearance, but not me! Never one to miss an opportunity for a good swim, I and Miss Russia had a great time getting fully soaked, hair and all!
Our pavilion, Shalom Square, was at the old YMHA building on Hargrave Street. Although competing for the crown involved the usual components, another important criterion was how well we demonstrated knowledge of our culture and traditions. I was happy to share our customs and foods with the public and visiting dignitaries, including Mayor Steven Juba, and the then reigning Miss Canada, 1972, Donna Sawicky. Both of my parents, Lil and Wally Guberman, (z”l , Dad only, as Mom is still alive and very well at almost 102), were also volunteers at the pavilion. The Chai Dancers performed, as well as others whom I do not recall. I believe the emcee of the show was Lyle Smordin, who was a well-known local announcer at the time. The girls were given one night off from our hosting duties to visit other pavilions, which was a lot of fun!
The crowning of Miss Folklorama took place on the main stage at the Centennial Concert Hall at the end of Folklorama’s two week run. Miss Latvia took the crown. Friendships were forged amongst us girls, and post events, coffees and connections lasted for a while. Miss Korea and I had a special friendship and we stayed in touch.
I’m not sure exactly when the shift from being a solo female hostess to having male and female ambassadors occurred, as in the years shortly after, I left the city for travels to Israel and other places. I married my sweetheart in 1978, Henry Berchard, son of Holocaust survivors, Sam and Eva Berchard, z”l, and after the birth of our three daughters, we moved to Victoria in 1992. I regret I have not attended another Folklorama since, although it is on my bucket list!
I still have the dress and headpiece I designed and wore as my interpretation of an Israeli dress. I tried it on, and fifty-one years later it still fits! The trim was crocheted by my Baba, Annie Rose, (whose story I wrote in the Jewish Foundation’s Endowment Book of Life, and which was dramatized by Kayla Gordon and her actors at the Foundation’s fiftieth anniversary gala), and which was sewn by my neighbor, Stefania Karpa.
It was a wonderful experience for me, the memories mostly still as fresh as the day they were lived. Mom supplied me with a few photos from her album, featuring Mayor Juba, Freda Fineman, Lyle Smordin, Miss Canada 1972, and me, too. It’s a good diversion to reminisce about the past, to get away from other more serious issues of the day, to think about a time that was sweet, carefree, and a much younger version of myself!
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.
