@Rita Bock:Your target is the property (or property characteristics) you want.

It's gamble that's worth it at the price they've bought it at.

It doesn’t address market correlations and characteristics for example such as if you had a geographically diverse portfolio but heavily concentrated toward growth markets, you would almost certainly get hit if growth markets took a hit even if you bought 3,000 notes.

Investing is not gambling.  

While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over anotherSection 3"A housing provider violates the Fair Housing Act when the provider’s policy or practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect, even when the provider had no intent to discriminate."

Let me be real clear that this property was so unique that it would be a gamble as a flip, so it only made sense if we were going to either a) live in it or b) rent it or c) do both, live in and rent it.

Only the most desperate renters would probably agree to live there so the price of the property would have to be dirt cheap and cost you as little money as possible in the rehab to make it worth the effort.Your gambling that the surrounding area will be gentrified in the next few years and increase the property values.If this was in Southern California I would say yes absolutely but,the ATL may be a little harder to wait for unless the population booms there in the next 5 years.

I gambled, held on till 2006, and sold one for $740K, though realtors say I can get $800K or more.Good thing I wasn't that greedy.

Bremner..I think we have some common characteristics :) When you found your first property- I'm sure you used the 70% Rule to analyze the deal- right? 

But I figured I'd gamble on it this time and chance missing a month of rent.