Models of human behavior in game-theoretic settings often distinguish between strategic behavior, in which a player both reasons about how others will act and best responds to these beliefs, and "level-0" non-strategic behavior, in which they do not respond to explicit beliefs about others. The state of the art for predicting human behavior on unrepeated simultaneous-move games is GameNet, a neural network that learns extremely complex level-0 specifications from data. The current paper makes three contributions. First, it shows that GameNet's level-0 specifications are too powerful, because they are capable of strategic reasoning. Second, it introduces a novel neural network architecture (dubbed ElementaryNet) and proves that it is only capable of nonstrategic behavior. Third, it describes an extensive experimental evaluation of ElementaryNet. Our overall findings are that (1) ElementaryNet dramatically underperforms GameNet when neither model is allowed to explicitly model higher level agents who best-respond to the model's predictions, indicating that good performance on our dataset requires a model capable of strategic reasoning; (2) that the two models achieve statistically indistinguishable performance when such higher-level agents are introduced, meaning that ElementaryNet's restriction to a non-strategic level-0 specification does not degrade model performance; and (3) that this continues to hold even when ElementaryNet is restricted to a set of level-0 building blocks previously introduced in the literature, with only the functional form being learned by the neural network.