I am going to need to work harder at networking to uncover the off-market deals. 

I'm barely breaking even on my properties there that met the 2 - 3% rule based on my flawed analysis not accounting for increased vacancy and the resulting costs associated with it. 

But there's a fatal flaw in that article.  

My reasoning (flawed as it may be) is this: Deal 1: lower rent = higher tenant pool but lower quality. 650$ apartment would be easier to rent than a 1100$ one.Deal 2: higher rent = higher quality tenants but lower pool overall.

Your logic is flawed.

View report*This link comes directly from our calculators, based on information input by the member who posted.

In most cases, there will be areas of the house that aren't photographed at all, which can still be valuable because you can infer things that may uncover more risk.

However, they often uncover other issues while conducting this income screening, such as a criminal history.

If there is a serious flaw in my thinking, please feel free to point it out to me, as I am always open to constructive criticism in this area. 

The difficult part is that even with these descriptions which I think are pretty good and accurate, segmenting by zip code is still a bit flawed.