There is a common erroneous belief that if a property is "really improved" that it will sell for more than what similar homes have sold for.

I wanted to err on offering to high rather than too low, to test response rates and ensure responses came in.

I think that your assumption that I am doing nothing is erroneous :)  Also, I bought in 2006 and I bought in 2013 - I bought the same way - those deals never saw the light of the market.  

Nobody would let that erroneous of a miscalculation go through.

That is why today I err on the side of caution.  

New locks are like 50$ .. wouldn’t it be good to err on the side of caution out of concern that every crack head in town that has lived there in the last decade can’t just sneak In to place and rob the tenants .

But don't liquidate your rental under the erroneous assumption that you need a pile of your own cash to start flipping houses.   

Even once you had both sides rented out, say you were expecting ~$950 from each unit to be conservative (remember this is a very large investment, and its always best to err on the safe side) that puts you at $100 cashflow for each unit, not a bad thing, but you would have to wait years to see modest returns for such a high pricepoint.In my opinion, at that price point it would be a no go for me.

If we're targeting high rewards we want to err on the side of over-managing things and being as good of stewards for the capital as is possible.

I will say, although I have been lucky with low vacancy and expenses, I am always very conservative in my calculations and err on the side of caution.