Abstract. Samson Abramsky has placed landmarks in the world of logic and games that I have long admired. In this little piece, I discuss one theme in the overlap of our interests, namely, logical systems for reasoning with strategies -in gentle exploratory mode. 1 1 Reasoning about strategies, a priori analysis or rather logical fieldwork?The notion of a strategy as a plan for interactive behavior is of crucial importance at the interface of logic and games. Truth or validity of formulas corresponds to existence of appropriate strategies in systems of game semantics, and in game theory, it is strategies that describe multi-agent behavior interlocked in equilibria. But strategies themselves are often implicit in logical systems, remaining "unsung heroes" in the meta-language (5). To put them at centre stage, two approaches suggest themselves. One is to assimilate strategies with existing objects whose theory we know, such as proofs or programs. This is the main line in my new book (6). However, one can also drop all preconceptions and follow a "quasi-empirical approach". A traditional core business of logic is analyzing a given reasoning practice to find striking patterns, as has happened with great success in constructive mathematics or in formal semantics of natural language. In this piece, I will analyze a few set pieces of strategic reasoning in basic results about games, and just see where they lead. I restrict attention to two-player games (players will be called i, j ), and usually, games of winning and losing only. Also, given the limitations of size for this paper, I will just presuppose many standard notions.2 The Gale-Stewart theorem and its underlying temporal logic of forcing Two basic theorems Consider determined games, where one of the players has a winning strategy. This is the area where basic mathematical results about games and strategies started:1 I thank the two readers of this paper, and also Chanjuan Liu and Prakash Panangaden for their generous practical help.