Back in the days before I heard of BP, I bought a condo rental in CA (did everything wrong, didn't even run numbers, by pure luck it cash flows).  

Most agents work on a pure percentage of the sale commission.

Unless you plan to live in the unit forever, eventually the property will become a pure investment and not your "home."

So that means pay less if this is purely a cash flow deal.

Purely educating myself....

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.FYI, the research is pure academic, and not for profit.

The goal, IMO, is for state consumer protection agencies to be proactive rather than react... do something before the cases get to court, so Judge Robert Gibson doesn't have to make comments like (alleged) "It’s just pure evil" about activities that should be caught with a few good preventative techniques (e.g. web crawlers, automated scripts running simple heuristic filters, etc.) and some part time Consumer Protection supervision.

Less management and pure cashflow.

i think it depends on the situation..sometimes people deserve it..i just berated someone for digging up a 6 year old thread that was purely a promotional ploy...i don't feel bad

While I agree with all the replies above, it's worth mentioning that YES, the OP is correct that from a pure ROI standpoint, putting nothing into the investment will make for the best returns.