Probability matching is a suboptimal behavior that often plagues human decision-making in simple repeated choice tasks. Despite decades of research, recent studies cannot find agreement on what choice strategies lead to probability matching. We propose a solution, showing that two distinct local choice strategies--which make different demands on executive resources--both result in probability-matching behavior on a global level. By placing participants in a simple binary prediction task under dual- versus single-task conditions, we find that individuals with compromised executive resources are driven away from a one-trial-back strategy (utilized by participants with intact executive resources) and towards a strategy that integrates a longer window of past outcomes into the current prediction. Crucially, both groups of participants exhibited probability-matching behavior to the same extent at a global level of analysis. We suggest that these two forms of probability matching are byproducts of the operation of explicit versus implicit systems. (Contains 1 table and 3 figures.)