According to the fast and frugal heuristics (FFH) program, humans make decisions by selecting from a repertoire of strategies. Glöckner, Betsch, and Schindler criticize such multi-strategy frameworks for not explaining how people select between the different strategies. As an alternative, they propose a parallel constraint satisfaction (PCS) model that assumes a single strategy for all tasks. However, contrary to Glöckner et al.'s assertions, the FFH and other multi-strategy frameworks have developed a number of approaches to strategy selection, tackling a difficult modeling problem that the PCS model disguises but cannot solve itself. Moreover, in contrast to the PCS model, which has not been completely spelled out, the repertoire of strategies assumed by the FFH framework is precisely defined, enabling researchers to make quantitative predictions about behavior. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.