1. yes (Look at the predictions board, I just won another $50 on 9/11/10 using QP)
2. no (It's run it's course. My post history is a testament to that.)
3. no
Although it's true that another challenge could produce different results (i.e., the last challenge I engaged in), it's been demonstrated here and elsewhere that systems fair no better than QP. Go check the predictions board and back-check the losses against the wins and you'll understand. Adapting a smaller game is pointless, because in the long run, the house wins.
It's a delusion. One that easily fools people in the small wins that you wrack up, using your systems. You get so excited to see wins that you apparently generated with your own intelligence, that you forget to include the overall losses. That's the problem. Free Replays play into this as well. You say, "Hez, yeah. I won 57 Free Replays." Meanwhile, you've spent $100. Is that really a win? Not unless this is your version of Coney Island.
It's no different from a psychic claiming to see the future, whenever 1 or 2 of their "predictions" happen to come true. All the while, the history of their success with the field shows that they've made bad "predictions" the vast majority of the time. We highlight the wins and downplay the losses.
If any of you think your systems can do better, I encourage you to demonstrate. 1 week. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. A system should outdo the QP or Personal Random Play 99% of the time. Period. No excuses.
Card counting is a true system
Using short-cuts to beat a time challenge in the game Mirror's Edge is a true system
Analyzing and sorting through "hot" and "cold" numbers to maybe, possibly, handicap the lottery is NOT a true system.