There is continuing controversy about the behavioral process or processes that underlie the major regularities of free-operant choice such as molar matching and systematic deviations therefrom. A recent interchange between Vaughan and Silberberg and Ziriax concerned the relative merits of melioration, and a computer simulation of molecular maximizing. There are difficulties in evaluating theories expressed as computer programs because many arbitrary decisions must often be made in order to get the programs to operate. I therefore propose an alternative form of model that I term quasi-dynamic as a useful intermediate form of theory appropriate to our current state of knowledge about free-operant choice. Quasi-dynamic models resemble the game-theoretic analyses now commonplace in biology in that they can predict stable and unstable equilibria but not dynamic properties such as learning curves. It is possible to interpret melioration as a quasi-dynamic model. An alternative quasi-dynamic model for probabilistic choice, ratio invariance, has been proposed by Horner and Staddon. The present paper compares the predictions of melioration and ratio invariance for five experimental situations: concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules, concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules, the two-armed bandit (concurrent random-ratio schedules), and two types of frequency-dependent schedule. Neither approach easily explains all the data, but ratio invariance seems to provide a better picture of pigeons' response to probabilistic choice procedures. Ratio invariance is also more adaptive (less susceptible to "traps") and closer to the original expression of the law of effect than pure hill-climbing processes such as momentary maximizing and melioration, although such processes may come in to play on more complex procedures that provide opportunities for temporal discrimination.